Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Affordable Homes

David Rendel: If he will make a statement on the number of new affordable homes built in the UK in the past 12 months.

Stephen Byers: In England, a total of 19,535 new affordable homes were built by registered social landlords and local authorities during 2001-02. Over the same period, 10,311 dwellings were acquired, converted or refurbished by registered social landlords and local authorities for use as affordable housing.

David Rendel: I am sure that everyone would agree that that housebuilding figure is far too low. Indeed, I understand that overall housebuilding is at its lowest since 1927. However, some local authorities are trying in their district plans to set minimum proportions of affordable housing for all major new housing estates. Has the Secretary of State set any maximum at which that minimum percentage can be set by local authorities, because my local authority certainly believes that it cannot set a level anything like that which I would like?

Stephen Byers: I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that there must be concern about the very low number of housebuilding starts last year. The good news is that, for the latest quarter for which we have figures, there has been something like a 10 per cent. increase compared with the quarter the year before. Indeed, in London new starts have doubled compared with the quarter the year before. The good news for affordable housing is that there has been an 18 per cent. increase compared with the quarter a year ago.
	That is partly because local authorities are now using their powers under the planning regime to insist as a condition of granting permission that affordable housing be provided. I would certainly encourage local authorities to do that. We have provided guidance as a Department to encourage local authorities to look clearly at how they can secure additional social housing—affordable housing—as part of granting planning applications.

Oona King: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the average income in Tower Hamlets is £12,000 a year but the average cost of a house in Tower Hamlets is £180,000, which effectively means that no normal person in my constituency can afford to buy a house? Will he look, therefore, at the intermediate housing market and at, for example, increasing the cash incentive scheme, so that people in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere can afford to live in a house?

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out the particular difficulties which I know she has in her constituency and which occur in Tower Hamlets more generally in relation to the dramatic increase in the value of properties in that part of London and, indeed, London and the south-east generally over the recent period. Cash incentives are one of the levers that can be used. The Government are looking very closely at how we can make that scheme even more attractive than it is at the present time.
	To refer to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), because the value of land has also increased dramatically in Tower Hamlets, one real lever is to attach a condition to planning applications that affordable homes be made available. That is one of the most effective ways in the short term of providing additional housing that people can afford to buy. That must be at the heart of what we are trying to achieve through the planning regime.

David Cameron: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating West Oxfordshire district council on spending £20 million over the next five years on social housing? Is he aware that the constraint that it faces is the shortage of land for sale? Will he look at two specific proposals to try to help in that respect? One is to allow local councils to pay slightly over the odds for land where social housing is involved, and the second, further to the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), is to consider reducing the number of houses that need to be built before a council is allowed to insist on social housing. That change could make a real difference and lead to more affordable housing in constituencies such as mine.

Stephen Byers: I certainly applaud any local authority that is able to provide additional housing that people can afford or housing that is available for rent. On the hon. Gentleman's first specific point, I want to give local government the freedom to invest in capital without needing the approval of central Government. That is part of giving local government more power, and his point is a good example of how local authorities can determine their own priorities. I certainly want that to happen, but we will need primary legislation to enable it to occur.
	On the second point, I believe that local government should look constructively and with some imagination at how it can use its present powers under the planning regime. There is one constraint that I want to change. At the moment, it can attach conditions on affordable housing only to applications for residential development. It would be far better if it were also able to apply such a condition to retail and commercial development. That would clearly create an opportunity to make more affordable homes available. There are ways forward. It is a serious issue and one which we are taking seriously.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend turn his attention to the terrible problem in London, where 50,000 families are in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation? Hardly any council housing is being built and there is a net deficit in the construction of social housing. Will he insist that all development sites include at least 50 per cent. affordable housing, if he has any power to do so? When will the borrowing restrictions on local authorities be lifted so that they can invest in new council housing for people in desperate need?

Stephen Byers: It would be wrong to have a fixed percentage of affordable housing; my own view is that each application should be judged on its merits. In some cases, therefore, it might be less and in others it might be more than 50 per cent., but each application should be judged in relation to each site. On housebuilding, my hon. Friend is right that for 10 or 15 years there has been a small increase—in fact, a reduction—in the affordable homes and social housing being built. The good news, particularly in London, is that there is now an increase, certainly in the last quarter for which figures are available.
	On the specific point made by my hon. Friend about bed-and-breakfast accommodation, it is scandalous that, for example, 6,600 children are brought up long-term in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We are going to tackle that. By March 2004, there will be no need for any child to be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation apart from in emergency situations.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State will no doubt recall that before the 1997 election the Prime Minister said that
	"there is no doubt that the homelessness problem has been increased by the shortage of affordable rented housing . . . our approach will be founded on the basic aim of ensuring that everyone has the chance to a decent home."
	Why, then, has the number of social housing units plummeted from 150,000 in the three years prior to the 1997 election to 95,000 now, causing a disastrous rise of 11 per cent. in homelessness, including 11 per cent. child homelessness? The number of people housed in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation has trebled since the last election. When is the Secretary of State going to get out and do something about that serious problem, and sort it out for some of the most vulnerable people in our society?

Stephen Byers: I was interested to note that the Conservative spokesman did not refer to a comment that he made in our interesting debate in Westminster Hall last Thursday. For the information of the House, I shall relay it; I wonder to what extent it reflects Conservative policy. He challenged me and said:
	"What is the Secretary of State doing about the scam of right to buy?"—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 16 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 355WH.]
	Whether or not that is Conservative policy I do not know, but I want 100,000 affordable new homes to be built or refurbished by March 2004 and made available. We will double the amount of money made available to the Housing Corporation for affordable homes to £1.2 billion and we will increase local authority capital allocations by £500 million. Those improvements will make a real difference and provide housing opportunities for people who need them.

Antisocial Behaviour

Anthony D Wright: What effect neighbourhood and street wardens are having on curtailing antisocial behaviour in towns and cities.

Sally Keeble: Since 2001, 84 neighbourhood warden schemes have been put in place. This year, we are introducing 123 street warden schemes. Most schemes have tackling antisocial behaviour as one of their key objectives. The wardens have been extremely successful in curbing antisocial behaviour by using a variety of measures.

Anthony D Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. Recently, three street wardens started work in Great Yarmouth town centre, and I could tell her dozens of good news stories that have occurred during this short period. On antisocial behaviour, however, yesterday there was an incident in the town that caused problems for the wardens. The general public have a particular perception of their powers, and they have difficulty getting across the reality. Will my hon. Friend take up the question of their powers, which are distinctly different from those of the police, so that the public are aware of what they can and cannot do?

Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend is right to focus on enforcement powers. At present, the wardens' enforcement powers belong to the local authority although there is provision, some way down the line, for the possibility that they may get policing powers. One reason why wardens are successful is that the public perceive them as being on their side. By operating in the way that they do, not only have wardens contributed to substantial drops in crime in certain areas, but they have been successful in getting antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts agreed, so they have brought about a big improvement in behaviour in particular neighbourhoods. I am sure that people in Great Yarmouth, too, will see an improvement in their town centre.

Tom Brake: Does the Minister agree that restricting the access of under-18s to products used by graffiti vandals would be one of the most effective tools that neighbourhood wardens could be given?

Sally Keeble: I believe that that has been tried in some areas. It is interesting that some neighbourhood wardens go out with anti-graffiti spray paints. Several neighbourhood wardens have been successful in working with young people and have got them to take part in constructive activities in the area, instead of graffiti and vandalism. The engagement with that group has been extremely important.

Karen Buck: Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the work of the north Paddington neighbourhood warden scheme, which was one of the first and which has been an extremely successful project that has made a major contribution to reducing the fear of crime and improving community cohesion? Thanks to the Government's neighbourhood renewal fund, we hope to extend the warden scheme to two other deprived parts of my constituency. Can my hon. Friend assure me that she is monitoring the mainstream programmes, such as mainstream policing or other projects delivered by the local authority, to make sure that the existence of Government-funded schemes such as wardens in deprived areas is not an excuse for the diversion of other resources to less needy parts of the community?

Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend is right. I shall make sure that those figures are monitored carefully. The money spent on neighbourhood wardens—more than £40 million, in total—has been a success in putting in place a new range of people to look after public spaces. The public have been enormously supportive and the schemes have shown tangible results, as reflected in the crime figures. I am sure that we shall see neighbourhood warden schemes as a permanent part of our public services.

Simon Hughes: In the borough in which the Minister used to be the leader of the council and which I partly represent, neighbourhood wardens have been introduced and are welcome and successful. If, next week, when I anticipate that my Liberal Democrats will take over the administration of Southwark, they wish to extend the community warden scheme across the whole of the borough, can the Minister make sure that money will be available for that from one Government pocket or another? Will she and her colleagues seriously consider allowing the community wardens to take over the responsibilities of traffic wardens, so that the local policing of the lower-level offences will be done by one group of people, rather than by two separate and rather restricted organisations?

Sally Keeble: I believe that the neighbourhood wardens in Bermondsey have been successful in getting 10 acceptable behaviour contracts agreed, to control behaviour in that area. As I understand it, the Liberal Democrat administration is in place only with Conservative support—the Liberal Democrats do not have an overall majority. One of the things that make the wardens so successful is the fact that the public perceive them generally to be on their side. If wardens started issuing parking tickets, that might quickly deter public support. Although it remains an option for wardens to take on some enforcement powers from the local authority, in many places that has not happened because neighbourhood wardens have been so skilful in controlling behaviour and improving public spaces.

Postal Voting

Bill Tynan: If he will make a statement on his plans for the use of postal voting in future elections.

Stephen Byers: The Electoral Commission is evaluating the recent electoral pilots, which included a number of all-postal ballots. We will wish to consider the commission's evaluation and to make any necessary changes ahead of next year's local elections. In due course, we will need to consider the benefits and disadvantages of moving to all-postal ballots for a national election—for example, elections to the European Parliament to be held in June 2004.

Bill Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Obviously, any process that would be useful in eliminating voter apathy would be welcomed in all parts of the House, but the recent postal experiment was very small and it is difficult to assess whether it was successful. Does he agree that we should further roll out postal voting in 2003 for the Scottish parliamentary elections, the Welsh elections and the local council elections to obtain concrete evidence about whether it can be successful and remove the problem of voter apathy?

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the pilot has been small scale—only 13 local authorities in England opted for all-postal ballots in the local elections in May. The Electoral Commission is considering carefully the experience in relation to turnout and also whether there has been malpractice or fraud. It is very important that those matters are fully investigated by the independent Electoral Commission. We would probably be moving too quickly if we were to adopt all-postal ballots for the Scottish and Welsh elections next year. Once again, we should use May 2003 and the local elections for further pilots. As I said, we might then reach a position in 2004, perhaps in the European Parliament elections in June, in which we can conduct a national postal ballot.

Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State accept that in conventional voting methods, people's ability to go into a private booth to cast their votes is an element of privacy and confidentiality that is very important? Is he not concerned that the introduction of postal ballots on a mass scale will mean that that element of privacy is lost and that those who wish to vote privately from their own households will not have the same safeguards that people have traditionally enjoyed in casting their votes in the traditional way?

Stephen Byers: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to the safeguards that we hold dear in terms of how we cast our votes in elections. That is one of the issues to which the Electoral Commission will want to give proper consideration. We must take this matter slowly and we must get it right; we will not be rushed into taking early decisions. We must use the pilots and learn from them, and we must then make decisions that are in the interests of the democratic process.

Anne Campbell: I welcome the progress made by my right hon. Friend in this very important area, but is he aware that many people are reluctant to take up their right to a postal vote, even though they may sometimes have difficulty in getting to a polling station? Would he consider it appropriate for his Department to produce some promotional material explaining to people how they can apply for a postal vote and use it once they have it, and how easy it is to do so?

Stephen Byers: That is something to which the Electoral Commission should again give detailed consideration and I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to its attention. It will report to me on 2 August on its evaluation of this year's pilots. No doubt, it will want to say something about the question of publicising not only the entitlement to have a postal vote if that is desired, but the process that somebody must follow to use such a vote, which can be rather confusing in some areas. We need to ensure that, in our desire to make voting more convenient and easier for people, we do not disadvantage particular groups. In particular, pensioners may find postal voting more difficult and prefer to exercise the vote as they have done for generations. We need to consider all those factors if we are to move to a situation in which all-postal ballots are held. In practice, that means that people will not have a polling station to go to on what we call polling day, which needs to be explained to them.

Theresa May: Of course, all-postal ballots were used in some of the mayoral elections on 2 May, in which Robocop was elected in Middlesbrough, a monkey was elected in Hartlepool, and the voters of North Tyneside, which covers the Secretary of State's constituency, elected a Conservative mayor—perhaps the first sign of the Secretary of State's impact on Labour's poll rating. Does he still intend to impose mayoral votes, by post or otherwise, on certain cities?

Stephen Byers: We have always said that we want to provide communities, cities and towns with the option of voting for a mayor if that is what they desire. They can vote for monkeys—perhaps Conservative monkeys, who knows? That is the choice that the people of North Tyneside had, but had there been a Conservative Government they would not have had that choice.

Theresa May: Postal voting was discussed by the Secretary of State at his lunch with women journalists last week, when he told them, as he told the House today, that postal voting could be used for the European elections. Of course, he also referred to the euro referendum and told them when it was to be held. Since then, the euro referendum has been denied by Downing street, his position on road tolls has been rejected by Lord Birt and his poll rating is sinking fast.
	The Secretary of State claims postal ballots as one of his successes, but will he not accept that voter apathy stems from the Government's arrogance, from people's contempt for spin, and from a distrust of politicians who fail to deliver on the issues that matter to them, such as transport? Given his record low rating in the polls, does he take any personal responsibility for that?

Andrew MacKinlay: Just ignore her and she will go away.

Stephen Byers: I thank my hon. Friend.
	I take the fact that turnout doubled in areas such as Crawley, Gateshead and South Tyneside as an indication that all-out postal ballots are welcomed by the electorate as being more convenient and more appropriate to the modern world in which we live.
	If the hon. Lady wants to talk about the policies that the Government are pursuing, I simply say this—people will judge what we have done on the improvements that they see. They understand that if there are to be changes in the transport system, they will not happen in a handful of months, but will take time. What we have done in the past 11 months during which I have been Secretary of State for Transport is to make the difficult changes that are necessary to lay the foundations for a transport system that will go from strength to strength. The improvements will be there for people to see, and they are aware of that. I want to be judged on improving the services that people get, whether in local government, transport, planning, housing, urban regeneration or balloting systems, not on one opinion poll in one newspaper.

Joyce Quin: My right hon. Friend mentioned Gateshead. Will he confirm that there was a turnout of 59 per cent. in the highly successful postal ballot that was held there? In fact, turnout was higher—I am not sure whether I take much comfort from this, as the general election candidate—than in last year's general election. Many people told me that postal balloting fits in very well with today's lifestyles, especially for those who do not work in a nine-to-five routine and may, for whatever reason, find it difficult to get to the polling station. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was possible on the day in Gateshead to hand in a postal vote at the library, the civic centre or any of the other centres that had been arranged, and as had been explained to people during the campaign?

Stephen Byers: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the benefits that were evident in Gateshead as a result of using all-out postal ballots and providing people with the opportunity on the day to go to vote not at a polling station, as they perhaps would have done in the past, but at civic buildings. The Electoral Commission will want to consider that when it undertakes its evaluation of this year's pilots.
	It is rather odd that, at the beginning of the 21st century, we still vote with stubby black pencils in a makeshift booth. Some Conservative Members may be attracted to that, but we need to consider the way in which people cast their votes to make it more convenient for the lives that they lead. That is what we are trying to achieve. We will do it on an all-party basis because we have a shared agenda of ensuring safeguards for the electoral process. However, we cannot get away from the fact that this year's postal ballots have been a success in dramatically improving voter turnout.

County Councils

George Osborne: If he will make a statement on the future of county councils.

Nick Raynsford: Our proposals for county and district councils, where an elected regional assembly is to be established in future, are set out in chapter 9 of our White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", published on 9 May. Any move to a wholly unitary structure would apply only in those regions which vote in a referendum to establish an elected regional assembly. We have no proposals to change the structure of county and district councils in other circumstances.

George Osborne: Does the Minister agree that people in England identify with their city, town or county, but not with an amorphous, vast administrative region? Will he confirm that, even if every voter in Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria in the north-west region votes against a regional assembly, they can be outvoted by Manchester and Merseyside? Is that local democracy?

Nick Raynsford: People in many regions of the United Kingdom identify strongly with their region. If the hon. Gentleman visited the north-east, he would find that out. On elections, we have always operated on the simple principle that majorities prevail. That will apply in any referendum.

Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper does not provide for a third way? The electorate will have a choice between staying as they are or voting for a unitary structure supported by a regional assembly. Does he also agree that, in the context of Cheshire, voters should consider the successes of the unitary authorities in Halton and Warrington, and cast their vote on that basis?

Nick Raynsford: The purpose of a referendum is to judge public support for creating an elected regional assembly, but when people cast their votes, they should consider the likely consequences for the reorganisation of local government to create a wholly unitary structure. That is why the White Paper proposes that that should be identified, through a study by the boundary committee, before people cast their vote in the referendum, which will rightly determine the outcome for their region.

Don Foster: In the light of the Minister's answer, what precisely did he mean on 5 March, when he said,
	"there is no agenda for the abolition of county councils"?—[Official Report, 5 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 148.]
	In view of his reply to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), what advice would he give to a voter in a referendum for a directly elected assembly if that person not only supported an elected assembly in his or her region, but wanted to retain a county council?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening carefully. I made it perfectly clear that people's primary consideration in the referendum is whether they want an elected regional assembly. The Liberal Democrats have advocated regional assemblies for a long time, but the hon. Gentleman has suddenly become rather coy about it. We have made it clear that people should be conscious of the implications for local government if they vote for a regional assembly. That is why we are asking the independent boundary committee to consider the appropriate structure for a wholly unitary pattern of local government. We have no agenda for abolishing county councils.

Tony Clarke: The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) champions the case for the status quo but many hon. Members would like the rights of unitary, one-stop local governments to be afforded as soon as possible to electors in England, as it is in Scotland and Wales. What does my right hon. Friend say to the electors of Northampton, who were promised and denied unitary government in 1996? The then Secretary of State said that it was a mistake and that there would be a review. My right hon. Friend's answer today does not give us hope that the review is forthcoming.

Nick Raynsford: We are aware that in some areas—Northampton is one—many people strongly believe that a unitary structure of local government would be of benefit to them. Having said that, the Government's view is that, over the next few years, the overriding priority should be to deliver on our local government agenda for raising the standard of service delivery, and that a widespread review of local government structures would not help to achieve that objective. That is why we are saying clearly that there should be such a review only in the regions in which people wish to establish an elected regional assembly. Without such a review, there would be an unnecessary third tier of government below the national level. That is why we are approaching the issue in an extremely sensible and pragmatic way with a view to ensuring that local government concentrates on the primary objective of raising the standard of services.

Malcolm Moss: It really is time the Minister came clean and admitted that county councils will no longer exist in their present form if and when regional government is introduced. As the condition set by the Government for regional government is that councils should be reorganised into unitary councils, will the Minister confirm that such a reorganisation could cost up to £2 billion if all eight regions opted for regional government? For that huge cost, we would get not one extra teacher, not one extra social worker, and no improvement whatever in local councils' basic services. So what is the point?

Nick Raynsford: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should seek to dredge up figures in the usual Conservative way to imply that there will be huge costs involved in reorganisation. The only pointer that I can think of for his figures is the extraordinary waste of time and money during the Banham review, which his Government set up in the 1990s and which created exactly the climate of chaos and confusion in local government that we are determined not to replicate. It is pretty rich of the Conservatives, who have an extraordinary record—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I will answer his question. It is pretty rich of the Conservatives, who abolished county councils in Humberside, Avon, Cleveland and Berkshire, to accuse this Government of having an agenda for abolishing local government. We do not.

Jim Knight: I am a keen supporter of regional government, and I look forward to the prospect of unitary local government in shire counties. When the boundary commission considers this matter, however, I would urge it to consider unitary county councils, and a strengthened role for town and parish councils. What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who have responsibility for parish councils—bizarrely, in my opinion—on the future of town and parish councils under a regional government structure?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the important role that the boundary committee will have in determining the appropriate and best structure for unitary local government in those regions that opt for elected regional assemblies. Clearly, this will best be determined by an independent body, which is why we have given the task to the boundary committee. It will need to consider whether a structure based predominantly on the county or on the district is the most appropriate in each circumstance. This will therefore be an entirely objective and fair appraisal with no presumption one way or the other. On the role of parish councils, I am sure that the concerns of parishes can be brought to the attention of the boundary committee wherever it is conducting such a review.

Patrick Cormack: As the Minister believes so strongly in regional government, will he give three reasons why any voter in rural Staffordshire or any other shire county should abandon county hall for government by 25 elected people in a vast region with which they cannot identify?

Nick Raynsford: I will give the hon. Gentleman three very simple reasons. First, it could well help to achieve more effective regional co-ordination on matters that are best dealt with at a regional, rather than local, level. For example, transport planning cannot logically be undertaken at county level. It is best undertaken at a regional or national level. Secondly, it will help to ensure that there is proper regional accountability for services that are currently discharged in that region by quangos and other bodies which the Conservative party loved but which are unaccountable. Thirdly, it will help to ensure economic development, which should be the priority in every region. It is the Government's priority to help all the regions to prosper.

South West Trains

Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the progress of new franchise negotiations for South West Trains.

Stephen Byers: The Strategic Rail Authority remains in negotiation with Stagecoach Group plc, which operates the current South West Trains franchise.

Vincent Cable: South West Trains is probably even less popular in my constituency than the Secretary of State. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it needs certainty to plan long-term investment? How has he responded to the specific proposal made more than a year ago that the operating companies take over track maintenance? Unlike the subcontractors, who have every incentive to cut corners, the operating companies have a long-term incentive to maintain safe and reliable trains over a 20-year franchise period.

Stephen Byers: The South West Trains franchise is of particular importance because it is the biggest rail passenger franchise that operates in the United Kingdom. The negotiations are taking time because the franchise process must be used to drive up standards and improve the reliability of the service for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and other passengers who use the South West Trains franchise area.
	On the specific point about the integration between the franchise operator—the franchise holder—and the maintenance and renewal of the track, Stagecoach Group plc has said that it is interested in taking on that responsibility. The Strategic Rail Authority is giving that proposal some consideration, but we need to work through the detail of exactly what is being proposed before any final decisions are taken. However, in the light of what happened at Potters Bar—although it is too soon to prejudge the conclusions of the Health and Safety Executive investigation—and in view of the Transport Committee's recommendations following the Cullen report, it is very clear that there needs to be a fundamental review of the role played by contractors and subcontractors in the maintenance and renewal of railway track.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the history of the franchise is a difficult one. I ask him to guarantee that whoever gets it will demonstrate an absolute commitment to producing very high-quality services for the passengers which has frankly not been the situation in the immediate past.

Stephen Byers: I agree with my hon. Friend that the South West Trains franchise is not being operated as well as anybody would like. Its performance levels are not acceptable. I want the Strategic Rail Authority to use the franchise renewal as an opportunity to secure real improvements for the travelling public. The SRA recognises that the franchising process is one of the key levers that it has to improve the standard of service offered to the travelling public. The existing franchise is due to be concluded; it comes to an end in February of next year and can be extended by a further seven months. The Strategic Rail Authority must use the time over the next few months to negotiate an agreement with South West Trains—with Stagecoach Group plc. If the SRA cannot negotiate a franchise renewal that puts the interests of the travelling public first, it will be prepared to seek a new franchise operator which will put the interests of the travelling public first, drive up standards and improve reliability.

Eric Pickles: What the Secretary of State has just said is very interesting. Prior to his announcement, there was an assumption in the industry that the negotiations would be concluded by July of this year. Now it is clear that they will drag on, possibly for a further year. Already we have had 14 months of indecision. The Secretary of State suggests that this is a natural process, but anybody close to the negotiations will tell him that they are bogged down. The result is that there will be considerable delays in introducing passenger benefits, replacing the mark 1 slam-door trains and increasing capacity. The Government are having to underwrite the cost of new trains. These delays are damaging the confidence of the industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Strategic Rail Authority's statement that the franchise negotiations are like "treading in treacle"? As a man who has delivered more than a dollop of treacle to the railway industry, what is he going to do to get himself out of this mess?

Stephen Byers: The position is that the negotiations with Stagecoach Group plc are continuing. The point that I was making is that, if they are not concluded, there is time for the Strategic Rail Authority to negotiate with a new franchise holder if appropriate. The negotiations are not delaying improvements, which are being introduced. The programme for replacing slam-door trains is on schedule, and new class-458 trains are being introduced to increase capacity. The negotiations are taking time because we need to make use of this opportunity. In terms of passenger numbers and revenue from ticket sales, we are talking about the biggest franchise in the whole of the United Kingdom, and this is a golden opportunity to improve the standard of service for the travelling public.
	The Conservative party would sign up to anything, and we have seen the consequences of that approach. This is an opportunity to bring about real improvements for passengers who travel on South West Trains. We want the Strategic Rail Authority to deliver real improvements to the travelling public, and it will.

Merchant Ships

Ivan Henderson: How many British merchant ships have registered under the red ensign since the Government introduced the tonnage tax.

David Jamieson: Since the tonnage tax was introduced by the Finance Act 2000 in July of that year, a total of 173 merchant ships have joined the UK shipping register.

Ivan Henderson: My hon. Friend paints a much better picture than that pertaining during the years in which Conservatives waved Union Jacks at their party conference with one hand while lowering the red duster on hundreds of Merchant Navy ships with the other. Is he monitoring the companies that are benefiting from the tonnage tax to ensure that they deliver on training and jobs for the Merchant Navy fleet? If not, perhaps he could begin by monitoring P&O, Lord Sterling's company, to ensure that he not only reaps the benefits but delivers the goods.

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend always takes an assiduous interest in maritime matters on his constituents' behalf. The tonnage tax places an obligation on companies that enter into it to train one new cadet for every 15 existing officers. So far, 58 companies account for 510 training places. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will monitor the situation carefully to ensure that the companies comply. He is right: in five years in government, we have re-established the United Kingdom flag, and the Union Jack flies on more vessels now than it did five years ago. The UK is now a force to be reckoned with in the maritime world, after years of neglect under a Conservative Government.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister agree that the significant improvement in the amount of tonnage sailing under the red ensign is not enough in itself? Does he share the view of NUMAST, the ships' officers union, that more job security is needed for British officers, and that greater emphasis must be placed on training UK cadets? Given that crews on some UK ferries are operating under contracts that prohibit them from joining unions such as NUMAST, will he ensure that proper social and employment conditions are enforced on ships that come under the red ensign as a result of the tonnage tax?

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman half-heartedly notes our success in getting ships on to the UK register. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has done an excellent job in providing a service to the shipping companies and others, thereby ensuring high environmental safety standards for those ships, and the highest safety levels for those who man them. Our commitment extends beyond training, and we will monitor the situation carefully. We have also ploughed a considerable amount of money into the smart training scheme to ensure that there is a proper training base in this country. The Government have done more in five years to enhance training than probably any other Government in the past 50 years. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) nodding in assent.

Gwyn Prosser: Does my hon. Friend remember the warm welcome that Jeffrey Sterling gave to the introduction of our tonnage tax when he told us at a Labour party conference that this Government had done more for the merchant fleet in our first 18 months than the Tories had done in the past 18 years? However, can my hon. Friend assure me that the production targets, the targets to increase cadets by 25 per cent. year on year, and the targets mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson), will be met? What sanctions can the Government take against those companies that fail to deliver?

David Jamieson: The answer is simple: if companies do not comply with the conditions of the tonnage tax, they will be taken out of that tax regime. I echo my hon. Friend's comments and commend him on the work that he has done on maritime matters. He has always spoken vigorously in favour of the maritime industry and its interests. The work that we are doing and what we have achieved in the past five years have considerably enhanced the UK flag and our standing in the maritime world. I assure my hon. Friend that the issues he raises are at the forefront of our minds.

Canal Network

Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on expanding the canal network.

David Jamieson: Questions on this matter would usually be answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I should like to take this opportunity to say that the Highways Agency has carried out work on that and has reached a satisfactory outcome in some cases where there is an intersection of canals and highways in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Michael Fabricant: May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister on behalf of the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust Ltd? I also thank the 2,500 people who walked the route of the canal with me. The Minister will be aware of the difficulties that have arisen because the canal will be bisected twice by the Birmingham northern relief road. What guidance will his Department issue to ensure that future canal routes are not bisected by roads? May I also thank the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for his intervention with respect to the guidance on roads and bridges, and for the help that he has given for all modes of transport that travel at under five kilometres an hour?

David Jamieson: Well, what can I say? I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and note his kind remarks about the Secretary of State. I am not sure whether he has cleared them with his Front Bench, although it seems clear from the reaction of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that he has not.
	I am aware that there has been a particular success in the case of the Lichfield and Hatherton canals and the bisection of the Birmingham northern relief road. That came about as a result of undertakings given in the 1998 Transport White Paper in which the Government ensured that environmental needs are a key consideration for the Highways Agency when it makes improvements. In the particular case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, a bridge and foundations for an aqueduct have been put in place to allow the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust to restore the canal. That is a shining example of joined-up government. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman sailing down the canal, perhaps in a barge, to raise funds for the party in government that allowed that to happen.

Bill O'Brien: May I thank my hon. Friend for his support in developing the canal network? Will he ensure that when restoration takes place, planning will be such that no development will take place over disused canals and that restoration can proceed without difficulties? Will he also ensure that there is full consultation on restoration and development with those voluntary organisations that have a great interest in the canal network?

David Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will very much take note of his comments. Where canals intersect roads, and where that affects the work of my Department, we have put in place guidance, in the Department's design manual for roads and bridges, that ensures that those canals are not locked out for ever and that they can be redeveloped in the future. That probably has widespread support on both sides of the House.

Peter Luff: As vice- president of the Worcester-Birmingham Canal Society and the Droitwich Canals Trust, may I say to the Minister how delighted we are with the progress being made by British Waterways on the reopening of the canal network? May I draw his attention in particular to the proposed reopening of the Droitwich junction and barge canals, which, again, are receiving marvellous support from British Waterways? Will he pledge the support of his Department to the reopening of the spectacular three-day cruising ring between Worcester and Droitwich, particularly with regard to closing trunk roads to enable engineering work to be conducted? Will he help in that specific regard, please?

David Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I look forward to joining him on one of those canals—perhaps I am on the boat—and I shall make sure that those matters that affect my Department will be attended to assiduously.

Road Traffic Speeds

Helen Jackson: What action his Department is taking to reduce road traffic speeds.

John Spellar: The measures being taken by the Government to reduce excessive and inappropriate speeds are contained in the road safety strategy, "Tomorrow's Roads Safer For Everyone", which was published in March 2000.

Helen Jackson: Does the Minister agree that proper enforcement of speed limits is not anti-motorist, as some people think, but pro-safety? Does he understand that, where digital cameras have been introduced and proper enforcement used, there has been a dramatic reduction in deaths and serious injuries? Will he therefore accelerate the programme—not of speed but of digital cameras—to include not only the A616 Stocksbridge bypass, which he knows is a particularly dangerous road, but other particularly dangerous roads in urban and rural areas?

John Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for the delegation that she brought to make representations to me about the Stocksbridge bypass. She rightly identifies the success with cameras. In terms of the pilot projects, on average, at camera sites, the number of people killed or seriously injured fell by 47 per cent. compared with the average over the previous three years. Twenty-six police force areas have now been accepted for the scheme, and, it is hoped, all who want to join will do so in the next 18 months. It is appropriate to stress that one of the key elements of the scheme is that, in order to ensure that reduced speed leads to reduced accidents, cameras are clearly visible, clearly painted and clearly signed. That has been widely recognised and appreciated by motorists across the country who understand the need for cameras but want to ensure that they are not out to catch motorists but to save lives.

John Randall: Does the Minister agree that one of the important factors with regard to speed limits is appropriate signage? Will he therefore undertake to introduce legislation that will enable repeater signs to be put up to make sure that motorists know what the speed limits are?

John Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a slightly difficult issue in terms of whether having repeater signs in some areas and not in others leads to confusion for motorists. I am particularly concerned about roads where the speed limit has changed—for example, where a road that used to be subject to a 40 mph limit is now subject to a 30 mph limit, as happened, for example, on the Chester road in Birmingham. I am particularly anxious that that should be clearly signed, and, where there are cameras, that the prevailing speed limit should be clearly indicated. There are balanced arguments on the other issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, which we are examining at the moment.

Transport Multi-modal Studies (Midlands)

Mark Todd: If he will make a statement on the progress of the multi-modal studies on the M1 and east midlands/west midlands movements.

John Spellar: On the west midlands to east midlands multi-modal study, there has been recent public consultation across the corridor on the emerging strategy, and the consultants will be working towards option identification over the coming months. The final report for the study is due in April 2003.
	The final report for the Ml multi-modal study has just been published by the consultants, W. S. Atkins, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. The East Midlands Regional Local Government Association will be carrying out consultation on the report before presenting advice to Ministers later in the year. The Government will give very careful consideration to the report and the views of the region before reaching their conclusions.

Mark Todd: May I commend the methodology employed in the studies, which has been innovative, and specifically some of the schemes that affect my area? The National Forest line featured in discussion of the M1 study and will feature in the west midlands to east midlands study, and it certainly deserves further support. The opening of the Donington loop from Willington to Nottingham will significantly improve east-west links. However, there have been shortcomings in the process of resolving the issues regarding the parkway station south of Derby, which would improve the access of Midland Mainline customers to London. There have been obstructions that the Strategic Rail Authority could assist in overcoming.

John Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for his observations and suggestions, which he has made not only today but on previous occasions. He is rightly representing the views of his constituents. It would be a little imprudent for me to be seen to endorse any particular suggestions before the examination by the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association. However, I will take serious note of them.

Point of Order

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a request from the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence to make a statement on what Klaus-Peter Klaiber, the European Union's envoy in Afghanistan, has said about prison camps? He told Agence France-Presse that
	"people have nothing on their bones any more".
	There have been horrific pictures and, if the west is really responsible for the prison camps, it is a matter of shame and it is something about which the House of Commons should be told.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach from any Minister.

Area Child Protection Committees

Adrian Bailey: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish local authority responsibility for area child protection committees; to specify the functions of such committees; to require agencies charged with responsibilities for child protection to provide senior representation on such committees; to make provision about the funding of such committees; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill seeks to establish a framework for child protection that will be based on best practice and be uniform throughout the country. I acknowledge support and assistance in the Bill's drafting from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Local Government Association.
	The recent tragic case of Victoria Climbié has demonstrated that there is an urgent need to strengthen the current child protection system in this country. The huge cross-party support for the early-day motion on an end to child cruelty that stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) is a reflection of the House's determination to move child protection into a new era. The Bill seeks to do just that.
	The Children Act 1989 and the Department of Health guidance that accompanied it set out the basis for a system whereby all the main agencies involved in child protection, ranging from local authority social services to the local NSPCC, should work together to protect children in a defined local area. The mechanism to carry out such a multi-agency approach is the area child protection committee, or ACPC. In theory, it should ensure that the different agencies co-operate effectively. The committee should use the combined knowledge and expertise of professionals to set appropriate procedures and protocols to identify and protect every child at risk from abuse.
	In some instances, where authorities such as my own in Sandwell have the commitment and a culture of partnership working, the committees have worked well. However, research carried out by Christine Hallet, professor of social policy at Stirling university, and the NSPCC has shown that the situation is not uniform throughout the country. There is a huge gulf between theory and practice in different areas.
	That was clearly demonstrated in the evidence from phase one of the Climbié inquiry. If there had been a strong, effective ACPC for the London boroughs, it is more likely that representatives from the agencies involved with Victoria Climbié would have collectively identified the abuse, assessed her correctly and prevented her death. As it was, the system failed her. That has led to overwhelming demands to strengthen ACPCs in a range of submissions to phase two of the inquiry. The time has come to end the lottery of postcode protection for children.
	The key problem lies with the absence in the Children Act of a defined legal obligation for local authorities to set up a committee. It is mentioned in the section and guidance that accompanies the Act, but crucially there is no statutory obligation on the local authority or other agencies involved to fulfil their functions in relation to the committee. The wording of sections 27 and 47 of the Act compounds that problem. Neither the police nor GPs are named as a necessary part of the ACPC. There is also a "get out" clause for other agencies. They are required to participate only
	"if it is compatible with their own statutory or other duties and obligations and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their other functions".
	From that gap in legislation a number of problems have arisen. The two most important are, first, that it reinforces the view that child protection is mainly a social services responsibility and that the other agencies involved are marginal, both to the development of child protection policy and in their consideration of individual cases. That may be reinforced by the professional isolationism in some social services departments where partnership working has not been fostered.
	Secondly, the gap in legislation permits those agencies with a wide range of professional responsibilities to downgrade their role in child protection. It becomes an add-on responsibility, not central to the work of the agency and therefore not justifying the same level of resources, time or professional commitment as others. To work, ACPCs effectively rely on the good will of professionals. Without a strong level of commitment from other agencies it is all too easy to leave things to the perceived expertise of the social services professionals without inputting the specialist skills or information that other agencies can bring to the deliberations.
	My Bill seeks to change that. It would place an obligation on every local authority to establish an ACPC. It would also place a statutory responsibility on the local authority chief executive to appoint an independent chair of the committee and to agree that appointment with the social services inspectorate.
	The reason for that is to ensure that, although the chair would be of a level of competence commensurate with his or her responsibilities, no one agency would dominate the committee and, in the event of a failure of any of the agencies involved to live up to its professional responsibilities, the independence of the chair would ensure that subsequent inquiries were conducted in a suitably impartial manner.
	The Bill defines the agencies to be involved, and it would place upon them an obligation to be represented by a person of appropriate professional competence and status. It would provide flexible arrangements so that the committees' boundaries could cover more than one local authority where the boundaries of the other agencies involved made that a more suitable basis for organisation. It would commit the committees to providing staff with training and policy development opportunities.
	In short, the Bill would place a statutory obligation on local authorities to set up committees that would be independent, representative, inclusive and proactive in the protection of children. Those committees would actively develop local child protection strategies in an environment where all professionals could work effectively. It recognises the concerns outlined by the many who gave evidence in the Climbié inquiry, and it would give ACPCs the strong role needed to make child protection work at a local level.
	As politicians, we should use the legacy of the Victoria Climbié case as a spur to put in place legislation that will do everything possible to prevent a recurrence of such a tragedy. We must accept responsibility for child abuse across all sectors of our society and work together to end it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Adrian Bailey, Mr. Hilton Dawson, Ms Debra Shipley, Mr. Tom Watson, David Wright, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Andrew Lansley.

Area Child Protection Committees

Mr. Adrian Bailey accordingly presented a Bill to establish local authority responsibility for area child protection committees; to specify the functions of such committees; to require agencies charged with responsibilities for child protection to provide senior representation on such committees; to make provision about the funding of such committees; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed [Bill 142].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[14th Allotted Day]

School Discipline

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Damian Green: I beg to move,
	That this House condemns the Government's failure to meet its 1998 Public Service Agreement to cut truancy levels by one third; regrets that unauthorised absences from secondary schools have risen under this Government; further regrets that an estimated 50,000 children are absent from school on a typical day and that another 10,000 children of school age do not attend school at all; is concerned by the decline in standards of discipline in schools and notes evidence from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers which shows that assaults against teachers have risen fivefold in three years; deplores the Government's conduct in first removing from head teachers and governors the power to exclude disruptive pupils from their schools, and then failing to collect evidence on the number of assaults by pupils on both other pupils and teachers; believes that the Government's current approach to these problems is flawed; is concerned that the problems of rising unauthorised absence and declining discipline particularly damage the education of children from deprived and inner city areas; and calls on the Government to provide a serious response to the problem of vocational education, while giving more power to head teachers as a first step to reversing the decline in standards of discipline.
	As we pass the fifth anniversary of this Government's arrival in power, the threadbare nature of their claim to have made improvements in education is increasingly apparent. Today, the Opposition will pay particular attention to their failures on truancy and discipline because they lie at the heart of so many other failures. Without effective discipline, there can be no effective teaching. Without regular and willing attendance, there can be no effective learning. If the Government cannot solve this crisis, they will be doomed to fail to solve the other crises in our school system, such as demoralised teachers, the widening gap in standards between the best and worst schools and, in particular, the Government's complete failure to give effective support to schools in our inner cities.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend mentioned regular and willing attendance. If we are to combat truancy by the example of what we do in the House, is it not a shame that, in a debate of this importance, there are so many Liberal Democrat truants? Only three of them have bothered to turn up.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. The Liberal Democrats have in their time claimed to be a party that cares about education: they were to spend and re-spend the proceeds of the famous, magic 1p on income tax on education. However, they clearly do not care enough about the subject to turn up in the House of Commons to debate the real problems in education today.
	It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are not in a position to take anything away from today's debate, but I hope that the Government will take away one message: the underlying, basic problems of truancy and discipline will not be solved by the usual gimmicks that the Department for Education and Skills loves so much. Grabbing the headlines for a morning may delude Ministers into thinking that they have done something effective, but it does not delude teachers, parents and pupils.
	Let us take this morning's headline-grabber by the Government, which is on drugs in schools. I do not suppose that there is anyone in the House who does not want tough measures to eliminate drugs from schools and to warn children about the dangers of drugs, but the Government are sending very mixed messages about their attitude to drugs in our society. This morning, the Department for Education and Skills announced a crackdown and that it would be tougher on drugs, yet for months the Home Office has been espousing a softer line on drugs. That is a mixed message; nobody can know what the Government really want.

Robert Key: My hon. Friend is right. When the Government announced their proposal to reclassify cannabis, the first people to write to me were the head teachers in my constituency. I wrote to each and every secondary school head, and they all replied saying how concerned they were about the proposal and that it would add to their problems of truancy, particularly after midday. There is no remorse from the Government or any attempt to support head teachers on the issue.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right, as ever.
	Quite apart from the mixed message on drugs, the Government are sending a mixed message about exclusions. Today, the Secretary of State and her colleagues have been talking tough. They are to insist that head teachers exclude pupils who are caught drug dealing. There will be no appeal; such pupils will be straight out on their first offence. That is a very tough message, but I seem to remember that four years ago the Government sent out exactly the opposite message. They were instructing head teachers to exclude fewer pupils.
	The confusion does not only date back four years. If the Secretary of State had made an honest U-turn, we would have applauded it, because today's policy is better than yesterday's policy. Unfortunately for the Government, I have taken the trouble to read the amendment that they have tabled to our motion—[Interruption.] Before the Minister for Lifelong Learning becomes too excited, I shall quote it. It is fascinating. I assume that it was written yesterday, presumably at the same time as the Department was writing its press releases on how exclusions need to be increased.
	The amendment boasts:
	"exclusions have fallen by approximately 28 per cent."
	since 1996-97. At the press conference this morning, the Government said that a rise in exclusions is a good thing; yesterday, as their amendment shows, they said that a fall in exclusions is a good thing. There is a central confusion. The Government cannot know what they are talking about. It is clear that head teachers across Britain do not know which message the Government are trying to send. The reason is that the Government do not know. All they know is that they must say something tough about drugs.
	The Department for Education and Skills is always one of the most willing Departments to say, "You want an announcement, we'll make it. Never mind the policy, coherence or implementation, we'll write the press release for you." Not even the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions would have the gall to say that that central confusion over the attitude to exclusion shows consistency of purpose. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by saying that she is a considerably more honest and straightforward politician than her right hon. Friend.
	Everyone in the House and outside it and everyone connected with education hopes that the Government's new policy on drugs in schools will work, but we are right to be suspicious that a Government who rely on spin and announcements rather than substance will not drive through an effective anti-drugs policy.
	Let me turn to truancy. Again, there is no difference between the two sides of the House. We all agree that truancy deprives children of their best chance in life and that the Government have a duty—which they share, most notably with parents but also with schools—to ensure that children attend school. Let us look at the facts of what has happened since the Government came to power. In the 1998 comprehensive spending review, the Government promised to cut school truancy drastically. They said that they would reduce the percentage of half-days missed a year through unauthorised absence from 0.7 per cent. to 0.5 per cent. That was a clear and unambiguous promise, but the result is complete failure. There has been no reduction in the percentage of half-days missed through unauthorised absence, which remains 0.7 per cent. In secondary schools, where the problem is most serious, it has risen since 1997 from 1 per cent. to 1.1 per cent.
	I have taken those figures from the Department's own survey of pupil absence and truancy, but Ofsted too revealed growing problems. Unsatisfactory attendance is up from 22 to 30 per cent. in primary schools, and from 29 to 37 per cent. in inspected secondary schools. Those are not abstract figures on the number of children missing school. Truancy Call, a charity that tries to deal with the problem of truancy, estimates that, on a typical school day, 50,000 children are truanting, their life chances disappearing. Most schools, it says, do not have the time or resources to undertake first-day contact with those children. [Interruption.] The Minister for Lifelong Learning says that she does not believe it. I do not know who else she is going to try to call a liar. Stephen Clarke, the director of Truancy Call, is extremely respected in the field.
	Perhaps the hon. Lady will believe the previous head of Ofsted, who was appointed by the Government. Mike Tomlinson said:
	"Statistics suggest that there are 10,000 children who should be in school but are not."
	Does the hon. Lady want to disagree with Mike Tomlinson as well? He found that statistic worrying and continued:
	"I wonder about what they are up to when they are not in school."
	He is right to worry, as we know what too many of those children are doing when they are not in school; they are climbing on the conveyor belt of crime, which will damage their lives and communities, particularly in the inner cities.
	I shall cite someone whom even the hon. Lady will believe—the Secretary of State, who said that official figures showed that 40 per cent. of street crime, 25 per cent. of burglaries, 20 per cent. of criminal damage and a third of car thefts are carried out by 10 to 16-year-olds at times when they should be in school. By any standard, that is a catalogue of failure by the Government, who have not met promises that they made in their early, happier days in office.
	The Government have noticed that they have got a problem and have recently introduced a series of measures to reduce truancy. They announced that they want to put policemen in schools; they have half-announced that they are thinking of taking away child benefit from parents of persistent truants; and they announced £66 million to tackle truancy in the recent Budget.
	Having policemen in schools is a sensible idea, and I welcome the Government's initiative. If head teachers want that, it is perfectly reasonable. I would be fascinated to know what the Secretary of State has to say about taking child benefit away from the parents of persistent truants, as the initiative appeared to emanate from the Prime Minister and No. 10, and volunteers in the Cabinet were called on to support it. It was notable that every other Cabinet Minister took a smart step backwards, leaving the right hon. Lady out at the front to defend the policy. I therefore hope that she will tell us later whether she still thinks that it is a good idea and, if so, when the Government propose to introduce it. I am afraid that if she cannot give us a date by which the Government are willing to do so, we will conclude once again that the announcement was made just to grab the headlines.

Bill Rammell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that opposition is not just about opposing, but about providing constructive alternatives. Can he give the House his view on withdrawing child benefit from parents?

Damian Green: Our solution to truancy covers a number of aspects, which I shall come to shortly. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall make some positive proposals, as I have done already by supporting the Government's initiative on policemen in schools.
	I am fascinated to discover whether the Government in power are capable of taking the decision on child benefit, or whether they are simply floating tough-sounding ideas.

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Damian Green: I want to carry on with the series of measures announced by the Government recently to reduce truancy, then of course I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, particularly after his sterling performance in his Select Committee, which produced a report on individual learning accounts that exposed yet another cataclysmic failure of Government policy.
	The third issue is the £66 million to tackle truancy in schools across Britain. What the Government have not told us is that the means by which they are funding that—the increase in national insurance contributions—will take £150 million out of school budgets, year after year. The Budget therefore did not put money into schools but took it away.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman might like one of my Committee's reports, but he might not like the fact that the very weekend that that was being discussed, our report on our interview with Mike Tomlinson, the former head of Ofsted, pushed the chief inspector to discuss a range of methods that could be used to bring the truancy figures down. There was an interesting debate over those few days. I wish the hon. Gentleman had joined it in a positive way.

Damian Green: One of the purposes of this debate is to use the Chamber of the House of Commons, which is a debating chamber, to carry on the debate constructively. I hope and expect that the hon. Gentleman will make his own authoritative contribution later.
	The Government are coming up with tough-sounding gimmicks. They know as well as everyone now—notably Mrs. Patricia Amos, who has been sent to jail—that an extremely tough range of measures is already available in the criminal law to stop truanting. This is part of the answer to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). Some of those measures were put in place by the present Government, and some by the previous Conservative Government, so there is no partisan politics involved.
	It is clear that when Governments and courts have powers that can end up with a parent being jailed for allowing children to truant persistently, even tougher new measures are not necessarily needed. The Government already have all the tough measures that they could want to deter parents from allowing their children to truant. The Government are trying to pretend that those tough measures are not available, but their cover has been blown by the jailing of Mrs. Amos. That shows how tough the measures already on the statute book are. I hope that they work, and that every parent with a child who persistently truants looks at Mrs. Amos being sent to jail and thinks, "I don't want to go that way. I'm going to do something about my child now."

Caroline Flint: It is interesting that the day that Mrs. Amos went to jail, her children went to school. That is to be welcomed, but it was preceded by two years of activity by those in the education service, the school and others, in an attempt to get those girls into school. It took two years and ended in court. Surely we should be looking for measures that could nip the problem in the bud much earlier.

Damian Green: If the measures were shown to be practical, of course that should happen. The jailing of one parent will send a shock wave round the country. Let us hope that, for once, the deterrent effect of a court sentence works.
	The underlying problem is that the children who are let down most badly by the Government's failure on truancy are those who are most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves. Many of those children, as we know, live in our inner cities and therefore attend inner-city schools. The figures are terrifying. Between 2000 and 2001, in several inner-city areas, truancy rose by as much as 16 times the national average. At the same time, GCSE standards—a strongly related issue—are far below the national average in such areas. Growth in truancy has persisted throughout England, where it has increased by an average of 1.7 per cent. in recent times, and the average proportion of pupils achieving the good GCSE score of five grades of A* to C is 50 per cent. It is terrifying to compare with those averages the figures for some of our inner-city areas. In Hackney, truancy is up 27 per cent. and the average GCSE score—the proportion achieving five or more A* to C grades—is 33.5 per cent. In Liverpool, truancy is up 26.2 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 35.1 per cent. In Sheffield, which was run until so recently by the Liberal Democrats, truancy is up 24 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 41.9 per cent. In Leicester, truancy is up 21.7 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 36.9 per cent.
	Those figures tell a stark story. The Government are failing our inner-city children; their rhetoric is not matched by action. They are tough on truants and on the parents of truants, but they are soft on the causes of truancy. Let us consider what they could be doing. The basic challenge on which they have failed is that of making every day at school relevant to every pupil. If pupils think that nothing that they do at school will be relevant, useful or interesting, they will start bunking off. Clearly, the long-term policy must be to reduce the number of regular truants to the hard core. There will always be a hard core, but we need to reduce truancy so that only that hard core remains. [Interruption.] I am glad that Government Front Benchers agree; perhaps they will adopt the policy that I am about to put to them.
	The first and most widespread thing that the Government should do is make a radical improvement in the provision of vocational education in our education system. [Interruption.] If the Under–Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), really believes that the Green Paper on 14 to 19-year-olds will lead to a radical change in anything, I suggest that he reads it. The first and most important radical change that should be made is that of rewriting the Green Paper in English, instead of the current jargon. The Green Paper is not remotely adequate to cope with the crisis in vocational education.
	The Government do not need Green Papers; they need to do what we do and learn from some other countries. [Interruption.] Clearly, they are so perfect that they have nothing to learn. Let me tell them about the experience in Holland and Germany. In Holland, for example, I visited classes in which 13-year-olds were rewiring rooms and plastering real brick walls. They were non-academic children in a non-academic stream—the sort of children who are failed by the school system far too often in this country and go out truanting. They were doing something at school that they could see was relevant, which they enjoyed and which they were good at. That was what got them into school, made them do the other lessons and allowed them to leave school having worked on a balanced curriculum and learned something useful, instead of taking the path of truancy and then crime to which far too many of our young people are condemned by the inaction and complacency of the Government.

Phil Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore take this opportunity to apologise for the introduction in 1988 of a grammarian national curriculum that drove vocational education out of every single school in the country? Does he now accept that that was a total failure and will he apologise to the thousands of youngsters who fell through the system because of those policies?

Damian Green: No. I congratulate the previous Conservative Government on introducing the vocational initiative in education in 1983. The policy was a serious attempt to get to grips with the issue that was opposed by the Labour party. I cannot remember what the Lib Dems did. They probably opposed it, as they oppose most good ideas. The hon. Gentleman has tried to go back into history—indeed, many of us think that he might live in history—but he did not go back far enough.
	The problem is not new and is not even one of the past 20 years; it a problem of the past 140 years. Let me break the habit of a lifetime and quote Lord Callaghan, who rejected 25 years ago the idea that we should fit
	"a so-called inferior group of children with just enough learning to earn their living in the factory".
	He was right that children who need a vocational education need more than that. That is pure common sense, and I am surprised that Government Front Benchers are so exercised by it. If those children are looking to the world of work, that is what we should prepare them for, by providing both the basic academic tools and proper vocational training when they are still willing to learn. Too often, the tragedy is that we wait too long, and by the time we seek to engage children who would benefit from a vocational education in proper vocational training, it is too late—they have got out of the habit of learning and into the habit of truanting. In five years, the Government have done nothing to help that dangerous lost generation.

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that most of the children who truant are those who would not benefit from the normal curriculum—in his words, they are not suited to an academic curriculum. What evidence does he have for that? Under his Government, schools that did badly at GCSEs were overwhelmingly concentrated in the inner cities. This Government have tried to tackle that through the excellence in cities programme, which provides benefits for all children, whatever their talents. What is his solution for those who are truanting and who are bright?

Damian Green: I am afraid that the hon. Lady may not have been concentrating as hard as usual. I just cited facts from the Government's own statistics showing that despite all their initiatives truancy has gone up, and by more in the inner cities than anywhere else. Whatever the situation that they inherited, what they have done has been relatively worse in its effects on inner cities. They have let down all children, but they have particularly let down those in the inner cities. I hope that she will reflect on that in her calmer moments. If she wants to talk about initiatives, I remember that education action zones were one of the great initiatives launched by the Secretary of State's predecessor and junked by the right hon. Lady as soon as she had the chance.

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the biggest victims of loss of education are not truants, but those who are permanently excluded and get perhaps one day's education a year? Those people make up 70 per cent. of the prison population. Does he accept that in 1997 the number of people excluded was 30 per cent. higher, and does he endorse the Government's strategy of providing a permanent place for all children in education from this September?

Damian Green: I think that that intervention may have been written by the Whips yesterday. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that the centrepiece of the Government's anti-drugs in schools strategy, which was announced today, is to increase the number of permanent exclusions. Of course, he is right that a significant percentage of the prison population is made up of those who are permanently excluded from school. That is not surprising. He and his Government Front Bench need to get together on the issue that I mentioned at the beginning—the coherence of their message. He may be right about the problems of permanent exclusion, and the Government may have been right in the policy that they announced in 1998, but that is not their policy today. I suggest that he takes that up with the Secretary of State.
	Let me move on to the wider problem of discipline. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) wants permanent exclusions to keep coming down. The Government used to set targets on that. One reason why disciplinary problems in schools have increased under this Government is precisely that the authority has been taken away from head teachers to exclude those whom they want to exclude. Teachers, not only heads, are unhappy with the situation. The Government always get cross when I quote the National Union of Teachers at them, so let me quote the Association of Teachers and Lecturers instead. It says that in the past year it received 120 complaints from teachers about physical abuse at school and that assaults on teachers rose fivefold between 1998 and 2001. That is terrible.
	If the ATL is another trade union to which the Government do not want to listen, perhaps they will listen to Ofsted. It points out that the poor behaviour of a minority of pupils is cited as the major reason for teachers leaving the profession. If that is true, it is a great shame that the Government have spent much of their first five years in office encouraging the undermining of head teachers' authority and therefore encouraging the increase in violence in schools.

Mark Prisk: Let me reinforce that point by bringing to hon. Members' attention the deep frustration of at least four secondary head teachers in my constituency. They told me that they feel that their hands are tied by a Government who are constantly trying to tell them how to do their job, especially its discipline aspects.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right, but I resist the temptation to consider the Government's wider interference in the day-to-day work of schools. They have done enough damage through their interference in disciplinary systems.
	It is extraordinary that, although the Government have so much information at their disposal, they do not bother to collect facts about the scale of violence in schools. My colleagues and I have asked the Government for some weeks for the number of teachers who are assaulted each year, the number who are assaulted by pupils and the number of assaults on pupils by pupils. The Government do not know the answer.

Estelle Morris: Oh no.

Damian Green: The Secretary of State says, "Oh no". I refer her to written answers from her colleagues that state that they do not collect that information. Why do not the Government collect it? They know that matters are getting worse and are trying to disguise the fact rather than dealing with it.
	We propose giving power over exclusions back where it belongs—with heads and governors. If they have the power to discipline children, discipline in schools will improve. That would send clear signals to unruly pupils and irresponsible and potentially violent parents that they cannot get away with their behaviour any longer. The Government have spent too long undermining heads and teachers; it is about time that they got behind them.
	The Government's never-ending stream of initiatives has failed to tackle the two fundamental crises in our schools. Until they use something more substantial than summits, press conferences and initiatives, our most vulnerable children will never receive the education that they deserve. That stands as an indictment against the Government for five wasted years. They are betraying the hopes of a generation of children. They will not be forgiven and they do not deserve to be forgiven.

Estelle Morris: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	'applauds the fact that policies to reduce truancy and tackle poor behaviour are central to the Government's strategy to transform secondary schools; notes that, since 1997, the Government has spent over £600 million to support measures to tackle truancy and poor behaviour and that this has been supplemented by a further £66 million from this year's Budget, that behaviour is satisfactory or better in 11 out of 12 secondary schools and 49 out of 50 primary schools, that there are now over 1,050 Learning Support Units and 3,420 Learning Mentors in schools and that there are 331 Pupil Referral Units whose quality Ofsted reports to be steadily improving; welcomes the fact that the Government is promoting multi-agency initiatives such as Behaviour and Education Support Teams and Connexions that are crucial to addressing this issue, that exclusions have fallen by approximately 28 per cent. to 9,200 from their peak of 12,700 in 1996–97; supports the right of Head Teachers to govern their schools as they see fit; further notes that all permanently excluded pupils will receive a full-time education from September this year and that whilst overall truancy levels remain a cause for concern, action is being taken; further notes that children have a right to education and that parents have a duty to ensure that their children are educated; and believes that the Government's policies will deliver lasting improvements in pupil attendance and behaviour which will support the achievement of higher standards and prevent social exclusion.'.
	I spotted two ideas from Tory Members. The first was our idea of taking away the child benefit from families who do not send their children to school. The second dealt with vocational studies and I shall deal with that later.

Phil Willis: That is a Liberal Democrat idea.

Estelle Morris: It may be. In that case, it may be unanimously supported.
	The speech of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was rather sad. The subject of the debate is genuinely important and we all need to tackle it. That applies not only to politicians but to every member of the education service and of society. As I shall show, we have done a great deal to deal with the problem in the past five years. However, the hon. Gentleman was bereft of ideas. Indeed, his analysis was so poor that it is not surprising that he has not reached the stage of devising ideas.
	I listened to the radio this morning and it became clear that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is so bereft of ideas that the hon. Member for Ashford hardly referred to them. Apparently the hon. Gentleman will talk about the way in which the Tories want to concentrate on education provision for the disadvantaged. What a cheek. After 18 years in power, it is a cheek for the Tories to come to the House and even murmur a word about the most disadvantaged, those in the inner cities, the poor and the deprived. I shall outline the exact position of that group of young people in 1997, when we took over.
	Nearly half the 11-year-olds did not achieve the expected standard in English and maths. That half did not consist of the sons and daughters of Members of Parliament; 20 per cent. of pupils who did not obtain GCSEs came from only 203 schools.
	When we looked at literacy and numeracy, children in the most deprived areas—on deprived estates, for example—were going into secondary school not being able to read or write. At age seven, 90 per cent. of pupils from better-off families were reaching the expected standard; it was 63 per cent. from the families of the worse off. That is the record of the Conservative party, which now lectures us on the needs of children and their families in the most deprived areas and the most challenging circumstances.

Andrew Turner: rose—

George Osborne: rose—

Estelle Morris: I will give way eventually. I want to make progress on this first point.
	In 1997, the link between social class and educational attainment was more stark in this country than in any of our competitor nations. That is what we have taken on, and we have a tough task. If the Conservatives are interested, as the hon. Member for Ashford claims, in concentrating on education provided for the disadvantaged, he should have stood up today and applauded the fact that, after six years of a Labour Government working with the education service, the percentage of pupils from working-class families reaching the expected standard in English has risen from 34 to 58 per cent. Which is the most improved borough in England, in terms of literacy and numeracy? It is Tower Hamlets. The next most improved boroughs are Darlington—[Interruption.] They were starting from a low base, but they had remained at that level year after year, and decade after decade.
	The factor that has blighted our nation's education system is that Government after Government—of both political complexions—have failed to break the historic link between social class and educational attainment. We are beginning to change that.

Andrew Turner: rose—

Estelle Morris: I will give way in half a second.
	I will not take from any Tory Member, in the House or outside, any lecturing on their care for the education of disadvantaged children, when we can see their record and we can see the record of our progress.

Mark Prisk: As a former chairman of an inner-London education establishment, I had to fight tooth and nail against a Labour local education authority that was trying to shut a school down. The Secretary of State's colleague, the Minister for School Standards, will know precisely the school to which I am referring, because he was leader of the council at the time. It is unacceptable for the Secretary of State to lecture hon. Members, saying that support for vulnerable children can come from only one side of the Chamber. All hon. Members on both sides of the House care about children, and to be lectured by the Secretary of State in this patronising manner is unacceptable.

Estelle Morris: Care does not get people a job; care does not get them into university; and care does not give them the skills that they need to earn a living. We get care from the Tories and action from Labour; that is the difference between the two sides in this Chamber. I do not deny that the Conservatives care. Care is not the preserve of any one political party.

Mark Prisk: rose—

Estelle Morris: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would remember that I have just said that Governments of both parties have failed to break the historic link between social class and educational attainment. That describes past Labour Governments as much as past Tory Governments, but every time that Labour has been in power, we have taken the action and made the investment to close that gap. The reality is, however, that in 1997, the link between social class and educational attainment was strong. A poor kid of 11 had less chance of being able to read and write. A poor kid of 16 had less chance of getting five grade A to C GCSEs. A poor kid of 18 had a one in 15 chance of going to university, while a middle-class kid had a 70 per cent. chance of doing so at that age.
	Okay, the Conservatives care, but this is about anger. This is about being furious that, historically, we have had a system that has not delivered for the poor. There is a difference between me and the hon. Member for Ashford. He says that he now cares for those in deprived areas, and that none of the action that we have taken in the past five years has had any impact. I shall stop talking about this issue, because it is not the main point of the debate. We inherited a system in which the children of the less well off were performing at a lower rate than those from the middle classes, and that gap was wider than in any of our competitor nations. We are beginning to close that gap. If the Conservatives do not believe us, they should look at the standard assessment test results, and at what Ofsted says. They should look at the results that the children are achieving.
	I shall talk about truancy.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Estelle Morris: I shall take one last point on this, then, with permission, I should like to move on to the main subject of the debate.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her attack on Labour local authorities. When the policy of child benefit removal comes into being, who will make the decision to remove child benefit from a family?

Estelle Morris: I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Ashford has decided that the head teacher will have that power. That needs a lot of thinking about. With respect, perhaps it would be better if I answered that question towards the end of my speech.
	This is a serious issue. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can ask questions in the way that they see fit; I will answer in the way that I see fit. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) raises an important issue. My view is clear: there are many other steps that we can take before we get to that point. However, because the consequences of truancy are so dire for children who miss school, we have to contemplate not only the withdrawal of benefit but imprisonment, as a magistrates court did last week. Talking about withdrawing child benefit has started a debate, and it is right that it has.
	On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about who would withdraw the benefit, it could be a number of people or agencies, including head teachers and courts. When we have consulted on the issue, we will come back, as the Prime Minister said, with suggestions.
	As far as I am concerned, such a measure is the end of the line. We hope that things work before such action is taken. I hoped that things would work before that mother was imprisoned, but they did not. There had been two years of intervention, investment and support that had been ignored. It is a difficult issue, but given that it could be one more weapon in our armoury for getting to grips with the problem, I think that it deserves the widest consideration in a mature way from people of all political parties and the nation as a whole.
	I should like to make some progress on truancy and exclusions. It is right to say that the truancy figure has not budged—it has stayed stubbornly the same. Most of my Department's other public service agreement targets have moved in the right direction. I am immensely proud of what has been delivered by the education service, but the one PSA target on which we have not made any progress has been picked out for debate. I have no objection to that, but before we discuss the causes and what can be done, we should look further at the figures.
	Before 1997, the truancy figures tell a different story. In fact, they have not budged since 1994. The hon. Member for Ashford may use the word "crisis" about figures of 0.7 per cent. in schools as a whole and 1.1 per cent. in secondary schools, but the figures have not increased between 1997 and 2001, and were the same in 1994. They are steady and sustained—they have not budged from when they were first collected in 1994 to 2002. Indeed, the figure for unauthorised absence in 1996 was 6.9 per cent., and we have managed to get that down to 6.5 per cent. In a debate about which party has the best set of figures, we win and the Tories lose. However, it is more serious than that. The truth is that ever since truancy and exclusion figures were first collected, no Government have managed to reduce the figures of 0.7 per cent. and 1.1 per cent.

George Osborne: The difference between this and the previous Government is that this Government had a target to reduce the figures by a third. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that the figures have not budged—the Government have not kept their promise.

Estelle Morris: I am speechless. So this debate is not about boys and girls whose life chances are being ruined because they truant from school. Apparently it is about a Government target that has not been met. Let me tell the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) that the Government have targets so that we can be publicly accountable and transparent, we can monitor our progress and, at the end of the day, we can make life better for boys, girls, pupils, students and their families.
	It does not matter, apparently, that the Tories did nothing to improve attendance—the fact that they did not have a target makes everything all right. That is the most pathetic excuse that I have ever heard for four years of Tory inaction.
	Perhaps I might add to the tale of woe by agreeing that the consequences of not attending school are more dire than we might care to imagine. We can all make a long list of such consequences. Some 30 per cent. of current prisoners were truants. Truants are 10 per cent. more likely to be arrested, and 15 per cent. more likely to receive a formal police caution. Excluded pupils are more likely to offend than others. The list goes on and on, and there is the additional obvious point that those who are not at school cannot learn, and if they cannot learn they cannot pass exams. We live in a world where examination success is increasingly the currency that opens doors to life chances and earning a living.
	I agree that this issue is important, and that we have found it very difficult to budge the figure, but we have made progress in many areas. I want to talk about some of the things that we have tried to do, the successes, and where we might go from here. However, I want to make the important point that most schools are orderly and disciplined places in which children and teachers are safe and a good standard of education is provided, and in which each and every one of us would be pleased and proud to have our children educated. It is right that we concentrate on the small but growing number of schools in which behaviour is a real problem, but in doing so we must acknowledge the good work that is done and positive ethos that exists in many of our schools.

John Randall: I am rather worried about the message that might be sent to our young people by the Government telling businesses that employees should be given time off to watch the World cup. Should we also be telling kids that they should have time off to do what they want to do?

Estelle Morris: What employers tell their employees is a matter for them, and I am not going to intervene in that issue. I accept that such situations can arise, and—with the greatest respect—the Queen Mother's funeral was an example. Head teachers debated whether to allow their pupils to miss lessons on the day of the funeral, and such decisions are best left to individual head teachers. I do not mean to sound evasive, but these are difficult issues for employers and head teachers. Of course, the World cup takes place every four years. Thankfully, more serious events do not occur that often, so I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's point is particularly pertinent to today's discussion

Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend mentions the link between exclusions and crime, and as I have pointed out, 17 per cent. of current prison inmates were excluded from school. Does she accept that such people reoffend within two years of leaving prison? It costs this country £34,000 a year to keep someone in prison, and we have the largest prison population in Europe, excluding Portugal. Would not that money be better spent on education, and is not her Department therefore right to focus on permanent education for all our children from September?

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is right: the best investment that we can make is in education—not only to help individuals, but to reduce social incohesion and ensure that such people get back into work and stay out of prison. That is a short, medium and long-term investment, with short, medium and long-term results.
	Exclusions were rising in 1997. They fell to 8,000 last year, but they are rising again, as the formal figures will show when they are published later this week. However, the difference is that some of the 12,000 children who were excluded in 1997 were limited to as little as two, three or four hours' education a week. That was a national disgrace. Anyone who is genuinely interested in providing education for our most disadvantaged children—who have so much to lose by not remaining in education—should remember that the previous Tory Government's willingness to tolerate excluded children receiving so little education was a cause not for national concern, but of international disgrace.
	The difference is that we have done two things. First, we have said to heads that they have the right to decide whether to exclude a child. Secondly, from September, we have set a target, which will be met, that if heads decide to exclude a child, that child will receive full-time education. That does not sound like too much to ask, but it has taken a Labour Government, five years of investment and a target that has been met to deliver that opportunity for excluded children, and we have done that by giving head teachers the choice about whether they exclude.

Andrew Turner: I welcome the fact that the Government expect to achieve that target, but how many of those 12,000 excluded pupils in 1997 who failed to be provided with full-time education were the customers of Labour education authorities?

Estelle Morris: I despair. When there is full-time education for excluded pupils in every local education authority in September, it does not matter whether it is provided by the Tories, Labour or Liberal Democrats. A Government have a responsibility—[Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that we are achieving the target by investing and spending money. We ask every LEA what they should be providing and what shortage they are experiencing. We then put in the capital so that they can build pupil referral units and provide the revenue so that they have the staff. That is why there are 1,000 more places in pupil referral units and 600 more staff than there were in 1997. It does not matter whether the authority is Tory or Labour; the investment is spread throughout the country. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that every Conservative-controlled local authority provided full-time education in 1997 for excluded pupils, I will take a risk and bet that he is wrong.

Chris Grayling: Surely the right hon. Lady must realise that the drive to reduce exclusions and to leave troublesome pupils in school, often by overruling head teachers and governing bodies, has made matters worse because it gives the message to troublemakers that they can get away with it. Many of today's problems have been caused by the drive to leave troublemakers unsanctioned in schools.

Estelle Morris: The issue is difficult. Front-Bench spokesmen, including myself, have made speeches about the problems of truancy and children not being in mainstream school. When exclusion meant as little as two, three or four hours' education a week, I believe that it was responsible of us to ask head teachers to think carefully about whether they should exclude because of the consequences of that decision, but the right to exclude was never removed. I think what happened was that as we were the first government to ask head teachers to think carefully before excluding, they felt a pressure not to exclude. Nothing was written down. There was no law. They were not directed not to exclude. However, I know from talking to heads that they were never happy excluding because they knew the nature of the provision that the child would then receive.
	The key difference that we have made is that heads now have real choices. They can be assured that if they come to the end of the line and do not want a child in school for whatever reason—perhaps because of drug dealing, which the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), has been dealing with today, or because of an assault on a member of staff—that child can be out of school but will still receive full-time education. Unless we do that, head teachers have no choice and there is no deal for young people.

Graham Brady: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Estelle Morris: No, I have been generous in giving way and this is a short debate.
	Head teachers need other forms of support between telling a child off and excluding them. The hon. Member for Ashford said that no action had been taken in five years. We are now spending 10 times as much—£600 million—on truancy, exclusion and pupils' behaviour than the Tory Government did. That is why there are more than 1,000 on-site learning units that were not available in 1997; 3,500 learning mentors who were not available in 1997; 1,000 more places in pupil referral units that were not available in 1997; and 600 more staff than there were in 1997. In addition, the Connexions service serves all children from 13 upwards and we have provided more money for truancy sweeps so that education welfare officers can work with the police. Those improvements were not available in 1997. That is the nature of the investment, and that is the nature of our approach.
	There is a real issue about whether that investment—which is massive, and there are always tough choices for Departments and Ministers about where the money goes—has been effective. I think that it has. Although the global figures show that truancy does not budge much, and we have found it really difficult to move, the figures for the excellence in cities areas, which are the most disadvantaged—some people feel sorry about the children there, while some are determined to do something—show a decrease of 0.25 per cent., whereas the England average has increased by 0.2 per cent. I am not putting those figures to the House, saying, "There, we've found all the solutions, we've found the panacea." I am seriously saying, however, that an investment of £600 million, the introduction of initiatives that did not exist previously, and full-time education for children who are excluded have brought about real and better life chances in this most difficult of areas.
	We have accepted the problem, and we have been very upfront about our difficulty in making the truancy target figures budge. This Government, more than any other, have, working with the profession, tried new and innovative ways of ensuring that we make progress. We have made progress, but not enough. In the years to come, however, we shall continue to evaluate carefully what works, and make sure that we spread that good practice to all our schools throughout the country.

Phil Willis: May I commence my speech, which I promise the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will be fairly brief, by thanking the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) for introducing this debate? As the Secretary of State said, it is about a very important issue, and it saddens me enormously that part of the debate descended into farce—we stopped talking about the real issues that affect long-term and even short-term truancy and exclusions, and were reduced to petty point-scoring across the Chamber.
	I am unique on the Front Bench at the moment, as I spent the whole of my career as a teacher, particularly as a head, in schools that served the most demanding communities—in Middlesbrough, in east Leeds, in Chapeltown in Leeds, in Seacroft and in Gipton—where crime is especially high. I find it galling when I hear Front-Bench Conservative spokesmen talk about what the Government are failing to do. I can say with my hand on my heart that throughout my whole teaching career, very little changed for a significant proportion of those youngsters. There are no simplistic solutions—and with all due respect to the Secretary of State, I must add that if she believes that by introducing draconian solutions we can suddenly put an end to this problem, she does herself and her Government a disservice. The Conservatives need to look at some other countries to find a solution.
	There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Ashford is right to say that the incidence of violence—pupil-on-pupil, pupil-on-teacher, and particularly parent- on-teacher—has increased alarmingly over the last four or five years. That issue was not part of my experience as a head or as a teacher. I remember a lady hitting me over the head with an umbrella on one occasion, because she was annoyed that her daughter had not been allowed to go to a school disco. I presume that that was a spur of the moment action, however, and I am sure that she intended the umbrella for somebody else.
	It is important to echo what the Secretary of State said—and, sadly, what the hon. Member for Ashford did not say—that the vast majority of children, in the vast majority of our schools throughout the United Kingdom, not only in England and Wales, do not face a daily diet of violence, and teachers do not face a daily diet of assault. Most children achieve exceptionally well in our school system.

Chris Grayling: Although I recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we are fortunate in this country in that the incidence of violence in schools is not great, does he not accept that recent research, particularly that published last year by the National Union of Teachers, highlights the fact that antisocial behaviour, threatening behaviour and abusive language in the classroom go far beyond the so-called problem schools and can be found right across society?

Phil Willis: As ever, the National Union of Teachers has carried out splendid research. Those on the Conservative Front Bench frequently rely on it in their speeches, which is an interesting phenomenon. The hon. Gentleman attends these debates and always makes interesting interventions. I accept that there is an increased incidence of such behaviour in schools, but that is a reflection of society as a whole. We would find exactly the same behaviour in the village pub, in the supermarket and on the streets, whereas we might not have found it before. We must not single out schools; they are a microcosm of society.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: How dare I not?

Andrew Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his customary courtesy and good humour in allowing me to intervene. I am sure that he will acknowledge that people are not forced to go to pubs or supermarkets—although I accept that one may be forced to walk along the streets—but children are forced to go to school. Low level indiscipline is as of as much concern to many parents as the more elevated ill discipline about which we read in the press.

Phil Willis: That is an interesting comment, but I do not think that I need to respond to it.
	It is worrying that we are now seeing something that I did not see for most of my career. There has been a huge increase in street crime perpetrated by school children. We must address that issue, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). However, to suggest, as the hon. Member for Ashford did, that the problem appeared during the life of the present Government simply beggars belief. In 1991 there were 3,000 exclusions, but by 1996–97 the figure had risen to 12,700. If things were so fine in schools at that time, why was there more than a fourfold increase in the number of exclusions? It is wrong to suggest that we are dealing with a new phenomenon.
	The hon. Member for Ashford too readily confuses different issues—truancy, poor behaviour, exclusions and crime—and ties the whole lot together, giving the impression that they are all one and the same. All four issues are connected at some point in time, but if we want to find long-term solutions, we must not draw convenient conclusions.
	The Secretary of State was right when she said that over the past 10 years the incidence of truancy has hardly risen. It was also honest of her to say that the Government had missed a target. It was a foolish target that was badly set, and although she did not admit that, it was good that she admitted that it had been missed.
	The House must also recognise that a significant proportion of truancy—probably 80 per cent.—is condoned by parents. The vast bulk of it is the result of holidays taken not by the ne'er-do-wells in the inner-city areas that the hon. Member for Ashford described, but in well-heeled constituencies such as mine, when parents take their children out of school for their two-week annual holiday, or even longer. We have to accept that that is part and parcel of condoned truancy.
	Truants are not necessarily criminals, however, and the House must recognise that there is a plethora of reasons why children do not attend school. School-phobics present a real problem for teachers, but they appear in the statistics as children who play truant. Four per cent. of all children who play truant are being severely bullied, and I know from personal experience how difficult that can be within the family. Children may truant because of peer group pressure or dislike of lessons, particularly PE. Those factors are as prevalent now as they were when hon. Members were at school.
	What is not in dispute is the fact that a vast increase in juvenile crime occurs when children are truanting or are excluded, and there is a massive problem that has to be addressed. The Metropolitan police point to alarming statistics: 40 per cent. of robberies, 25 per cent. of burglaries and 20 per cent. of thefts in London are performed by 10 to 16-year-olds during school hours. Even more disturbing is the picture painted by the recently published 2002 youth crime survey, conducted by MORI, with one in four schoolchildren saying that they have committed a crime in the past 12 months. We must address the fact that crime, especially low-level crime, is acceptable to young people.
	We must, however, draw a distinction between children who occasionally truant and those who are long-term truants or have been excluded or expelled from school. Another interesting statistic from the youth crime survey is that of those children who commit crime, the number who did so before they truanted from school is almost the same as the number who began committing crime after they started truanting. That supports the point, which I was making to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, that this is a societal issue, and there are real problems that must be addressed.
	What is particularly damning about the new survey is that two thirds of children excluded from school have been responsible for a recorded crime and that permanently excluded children are responsible, on average, for 44 crimes a year each. Those are two staggering statistics, and they must be addressed. Permanently excluded children are more likely to drink, to take drugs, to damage property, to handle stolen goods, to commit assault and to carry a weapon. However, the biggest problem arising from long-term truancy and exclusion is the damage that those young people do to themselves. The future for them, far from being bright, is distinctly dismal.
	Equally dismal is the fact that the same categories of children who were excluded 10 years ago are at the centre of today's exclusion bonanza. They include children in care and children from minority communities, particularly Afro-Caribbean boys and Bangladeshis. They include children who have special needs, who are seven times more likely to be excluded than other children, and children with low levels of attainment, many of whom, as the Secretary of State rightly said, end up in our prisons. Eight per cent. of persistent truants achieve five good GCSEs, compared with 54 per cent. of children who do not truant at all. Three quarters of homeless teenagers on the streets today were either permanently excluded or were long-term truants before they ran away from home.
	None of those issues was addressed by the hon. Member for Ashford, who spoke for the Conservatives. Yet his party leader made a speech this morning about connecting the Tory party with real communities and offering solutions. That is the sad thing about where the Tory party is, as opposed to where it would like to be. MPs talk glibly about getting tough—with respect, I must point out that Members on both Front Benches have done so—but I hope that they will stop and think that for many of the young people about whom they are talking, life is already very tough indeed.

John Hayes: As always when I intervene on the hon. Gentleman's speeches in such debates, I pay tribute to his knowledge and his commitment to the subject. I am disappointed, however, that he should pour scorn on what the leader of the Conservative party said this morning, because my right hon. Friend was making some of the same points that the hon. Gentleman makes about our responsibility and duty to address such issues in a non-partisan way for the benefit of those who are least able to speak for themselves. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the courage and integrity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for making that speech this morning.

Phil Willis: I, too, have great respect for the hon. Gentleman—we have been friendly adversaries for some time—but with all due respect to him, may I say that words come easily, but it is actions, and providing resources to support those actions, that really matter? Not a single word from the Leader of the Opposition this morning, nor a single word in the book recently written by the hon. Member for Ashford, refers to any solution, with real answers and real resources, to attack real problems; what comes from them is just words.

Geraint Davies: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech. Does he agree that the real challenge for the Government is to provide the right sort of specialist educational facilities, properly resourced, to match the real needs of excluded children in a way that will deliver educational success and lower crime? In particular, he says that the Afro-Caribbean community is disproportionately affected by exclusion. That difficulty is in turn reflected in the prison population, and then spirals back on itself through reoffending. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that difficulty can also be addressed by providing the right sort of educational opportunities, not just pupil referral units, which sound a bit like borstals, but proper intensive education to get people back on the straight and narrow?

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for making that point, with which I shall deal—although briefly, because although we would like to spend more time on such issues, I am mindful of my promise to the hon. Member for Huddersfield.
	I was about to say that the Government have introduced several interesting initiatives in the past five years to tackle some of the inherent problems. What saddens me is that of late, the Government have gone for the Daily Mail approach of removing benefits from families, which affects the whole family rather than an individual. I find the imprisoning of a single mother for 30 days totally unacceptable. The Secretary of State and her colleagues—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Ashford—supported that move. We differ fundamentally there; I do not believe that that mother was a danger to society. We must strip away some of those issues and find coherent wholesome ways to treat some of the problems.
	The Government have put a significant amount of additional resources into tackling some of the issues. Electronic registration, pupil referral units, in-school behaviour units, mentors, the Connexions service and even bringing in the police and other agencies are all issues on which the Government have our broad support. However, I find it difficult to understand why the Government have not attacked some of the central reasons why children do not attend school. The evidence is before us: the most significant reason that children give for not attending school long term is that they do not like it; they do not like the lessons.

Liz Blackman: Speaking as one person who has spent all their former life in education to another, and accepting that the problem is very complex, I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that one of the fundamental necessities in motivating children is the quality of the teaching offered in schools. Often children muck about or refuse to go to school because there is nothing on offer. I am not denigrating the majority of teachers, who provide a good service, but I spent a long time in school and I knew, by looking along the corridor, where children would be well served and where they would not. I could see bad behaviour forming as children walked down the corridor. Are not good teaching and the standards that we have driven up an absolutely core element?

Phil Willis: If the hon. Lady believes that, she must be ashamed of her own Ministers, who have done even more than the Conservative Government to demoralise teachers during their five years in office. I agree with her overall sentiments. I certainly agree that quality teaching is at the heart of the agenda. But if she believes that putting up all those hurdles for pupils to fall over—introducing initiative after initiative in classrooms, and subjecting children to 87 different tests between the age of five, when they start school, and 19, when they leave—is improving the lot of youngsters, I disagree with her.

Liz Blackman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Phil Willis: I am too generous; I will.

Liz Blackman: Ofsted has found that the quality of teaching has risen significantly over the past few years. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he has made a pretty cheap point. The evidence is there: teaching is improving, and the results that pupils are achieving are improving as a consequence.

Phil Willis: I did not mean to be disrespectful to the hon. Lady; it is just that, like her, I feel passionately about this subject.
	It is true that for a significant number of young people in a significant number of schools, both the product offered and the results achieved are improving—but the gap between high-performing and low-performing schools is widening, and it is the kids whom we are discussing today who continue to get a poor deal at the bottom of the pile. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ashford agrees with the Liberal Democrats about the curriculum currently on offer. The diet presented to a significant number of our youngsters is entirely inappropriate; in 2002 it is not possible to provide a 1988 grammarian's national curriculum handed down from on high, with a "one size fits all" examination structure, and sustain the belief that children can be reconnected.
	We must listen to young people. We must listen to the reasons why so many of them have been turned off school. What is being offered to numerous young people is unacceptable. That is not a criticism of our schools; it is a criticism of successive Governments who have been increasingly telling schools what to do, and when and how to do it. We must break out of that spiral.
	It is sad that we should allow ourselves to reach a point at which permanent exclusions are seen as the only answer. The Secretary of State half fell into that trap today, and the hon. Member for Ashford constantly makes the same claim. All that the Tories had to say in their 2001 manifesto was that they wanted to give head teachers an instant ability to kick kids out of school. That is not the final solution. [Interruption.] With respect, the hon. Member for Ashford said very little else in that manifesto. Free schools and kick kids out of schools—that was about the sum total.
	The subject of exclusions is crucial. It goes right back to an issue raised earlier by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight; it is a society issue. A head teacher may exclude a child from a school, but the child cannot be excluded from the community in which he or she lives. Members who represent deprived communities know that only too well. The kids I excluded from my school ended up at the school gates every day, because they had nowhere else to go. Providing full-time education for the kids who are excluded today is important, but it must be the right type of full-time education.
	Members visiting Slough today would be able to observe an experiment involving an exclusion-free zone. Children's next port of call is organised before they actually need to be excluded. That goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies): we have to make the right provision. It is not merely a matter of giving children five, six or 10 hours a week—we have to offer them the right provision.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I am sorry, but I cannot give way; I must conclude my speech—otherwise I shall be shot.
	I meet many young people, especially in Lambeth, where I spend time at present, and in Islington. When they talk about school they say that no one ever listens to them. They talk about school as though it were an alien institution. I leave the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), with this thought: if we genuinely want to make inroads into the problems of truancy and exclusion, we must listen to young people. If we listen to why they opt out, ultimately we shall find a solution.

Barry Sheerman: I feel rather guilty after making the jocular suggestion that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) make a briefer contribution than normal, because I was really enjoying his speech. It was thoughtful, as ever. The hon. Gentleman's experience in education is almost unparalleled in the Chamber. When he is not making hardline political points, he addresses the question and it is very good to listen to him.
	I experience a sense of disappointment on these occasions, however, because we are constricted by these Opposition day debates. The Opposition have to choose a subject; they have to be controversial and they have to be nasty about the Government. Sometimes that knockabout style works well, but it is really not right for the subjects of truancy and discipline which are important educational issues. An enormous amount of thought, research and activity are needed to address the problems.
	Every Member who has contributed to the debate—apart from the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—agreed that most of our students attend school regularly, enjoy quality teaching and perform pretty well. We know that standards have been rising during the past six years—as we hear in the Select Committee on Education and Skills when we interview Ofsted officials. That is not a partisan political point.
	I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the number of unauthorised school non-attendances has not budged; it is 0.7 per cent. There is a slight change in the numbers when we compare primary and secondary schools, but by and large the level is constant. When the Select Committee visited France to study the parallels between our system and the French one, the chief inspector of schools in France said that the problem was similar—the truancy rate is persistent. From my American connections, I know that that is true in the United States; it is also true in Germany. The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom.
	The percentage is small but the problem can be made to sound like the end of the civilised world by tabling an early-day motion or an Opposition motion on it. To say that there are 5 million or 6 million unauthorised non-attendances in an average year sounds horrific, but that ignores the fact that although the problem is persistent, the rate is constant.
	The Government were unwise to set a target on that most difficult matter. They are satisfied that they have met some of their targets, or have at least made some progress, but they have not met their target on truancy. It is a very difficult problem, all of whose aspects are interconnected. If one talks frankly to teachers about non-attendance, some of them—quietly, yet wisely—say that if the 0.7 per cent. who should be in school were there, it would make life in the classroom much more difficult. That is the truth of the matter. So we must consider such people and decide how to tackle them.
	We are not going to get everybody to go to school. Indeed, I confess that there were one or two days on which I did not go to school in Hampton—at that time in my career it was probably because of the lure of taking a boat out on the Thames. That was not with my parents' approval. I feel guilty now about the days that I missed, but let us consider the serious parts of the problem.
	Some of the research is very interesting. In his book, "Tackling Truancy in Schools", which is published by Routledge, Ken Reid has broken down the causes of truancy into social, psychological and institutional factors and conducted in-depth research into those who are truants.
	Under social factors, the domestic lives of those asked—family circumstances, and so on—account for 16 per cent. of truancy. Peer-group influence accounts for 10 per cent., and going out for a bit of entertainment, as I did for a couple of days, accounts for 2 per cent. Employment is cited as a cause in 1 per cent. of cases. On the psychological side, the figure for illness is 9 per cent., and for psychosomatic disorders it is 1 per cent. Pure laziness accounts for only 2 per cent., which I thought was refreshing. So, the picture is complicated.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough disagreed with one of my hon. Friends on the subject of quality of teaching. I do not think that truancy is a question of the quality of teaching. We have heard much criticism of inner cities, and I note that the Opposition have today criticised the Government on that matter and that the Leader of the Opposition has launched an initiative highlighting problems in those areas. The truth is that teaching in the inner city is difficult in particular because of the transient nature of the population. If one talks to teachers just down the road from these Houses of Parliament, they say "For goodness sake, we do not know on any day who will be there to be taught." That is not because of truancy but because of the nature of the moving populations in our inner cities. According to the research, school transfers, which are listed under the institutional factors relating to truancy, account for 16 per cent. of cases.
	Another very worrying figure in the research is that 15 per cent. of truancy is attributable to bullying, and I know that the Government have taken initiatives on bullying. In reflecting on the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on the matter, I think that violence in schools, whether against teachers or pupils, is a no-go area, and that exclusion should be used in response to it.
	Only 10 per cent. of truancy is caused by unhappiness with the curriculum and examinations, which is significant, and I entirely agree with other speakers in this debate on that subject. I know that I sometimes become tedious when, in reflecting on my own school experience, I comment on the number of children who were sat at the back or in the middle of a class, not excited by the curriculum or the diet of education that they received at school. Many such pupils always felt that only the pure academics in the class received all the stars, the brownie points and the encouragement. The other pupils felt disheartened and lacked self-esteem as a result. The Government are starting to address the problem—but not fast enough—of exciting the imagination of all the young people in a classroom. I know that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough agrees with me on that.
	Only 6 per cent. of truancy is caused by school rules and punishment. Only 5 per cent. of those asked said that the teachers put them off school and made them play truant. The desire to leave accounts for 4 per cent. of truancy. I have gone through that research because it shows the complexity of the subject. We asked Mike Tomlinson, the former chief inspector, which were the best ways of tackling that complex area. He came up with a range of proposals that Ofsted is considering; I am surprised that the hon. Member for Ashford did not mention any of them. Ofsted has been looking at absences condoned by parents who do not value school attendance highly; poor resistance to, and recovery from, illness, especially among low-income families, where there is a higher rate of illness; disaffection with the curriculum offered at school, particularly key stage 4; and difficulty coping with school work because of underdeveloped literacy skills, which is very important indeed. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a political point about central direction from the Government and the Department. Of course there is a balance, but if four out of 10 pupils are not reaching literacy and numeracy targets, the Government know that that is important. Any Secretary of State would realise that they must do something.

Liz Blackman: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Does he agree that children without reasonable literacy or numeracy skills cannot access the curriculum, whatever its content?

Barry Sheerman: Absolutely. I was about to make an even stronger point: if children feel embarrassed because they have not learned to read and write, that quickly becomes apparent to their peers in the classroom. Lack of esteem and self-worth can lead to fear of going to school. There is a lot of evidence that children who do not attain basic literacy skills become school-phobic.
	Ofsted also looked at poor relationships with school staff; poor relationships with fellow pupils at key stages 2 and 3; and difficult home circumstances, including lack of parental discipline and control.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of important points; I was particularly struck by the one that he just made about self-esteem in the classroom. He referred to the transient nature of some school populations. Does he accept that society probably needs to look again at the parental behaviour towards children that it is prepared to tolerate, and the transient lifestyle that moves children from one school to another, week after week? That kind of behaviour does not allow children to develop properly, so should we take steps to prevent it?

Barry Sheerman: Absolutely. Figures published this morning on drug addiction show that there are 40,000 drug addicts in the country, but some people reckon that that is an underestimate and the true figure is four or five times higher and is about 200,000. A lot of those people are parents; children in Huddersfield, and elsewhere I am sure, have been brought up by drug-addicted parents. The relationship between drug addiction, drug dependency and quality of home life is horrible to contemplate. We should also think about alcohol abuse by parents and many other deficiencies in children's home background.
	The methods that we use to get children to come to school, stay there and get the education that will fulfil their potential are a sensitive issue. It is a crime to say that there is a one size fits all solution because there is not. We know that different parts of our constituencies and different communities have different problems. I, too, am horrified by the fact that a woman has gone to prison for not sending her child to school. However, I disagree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, as I believe that the sentence was correct. We have a system in which people worked with a parent—I do not want to mention her name—for two years. Given the cost to society of working with that family, in which there are five children, and the fact that that still resulted in failing to get the parent to co-operate and send her children to school, a sentence is needed that makes the public realise that the responsibility rests with the parent.
	It hurts me that there should be such a sentence; I hate it. In a former life I was the shadow Minister for Home Affairs, and I remember campaigning about the large number of women who went to prison in the mid-1990s for not paying their television licences. There were hundreds of them, every year—800 in the mid-1990s. The courts did not know how to deal with their refusal to pay, so they went to prison. Some went to prison willingly, having refused to pay the fine. Now there are just a few—the last statistic was 30 or 40, mostly women—who go to prison for not paying their television licences.
	Some of the laws of our society conclude with a prison sentence. I feel bad about that. Of course we do not want any more people to go to prison for failing to send their children to school, but that must remain a last resort.
	We pushed the chief inspector to suggest other ways of making sure that children come to school and that parents co-operate and understand the importance of a child attending school. There has been a great fuss about even contemplating the withdrawal of child benefit, but we should not exclude that as an option. Most of the resources—90 per cent.—must be devoted to encouraging children to go to school, making it a good experience for them. But perhaps someone in society must say to parents, "You are receiving benefit, so perhaps you have a responsibility to act like a responsible citizen."
	I shall give the House one example. I do not want to pick on one part of the community, but we know that there is a problem of non-attendance among Afro- Caribbean boys. There are also problems of discipline and non-attendance among white working-class boys in many inner-city constituencies. There is also the example of Asian girls; I have a particular problem in west Yorkshire, where parents take young girls out of school for long periods. The girls might end up as domestic drudges at home or be taken back to Pakistan or Bangladesh for a long time, and come back only when their education is utterly destroyed, sometimes two or three years later. It is not acceptable to destroy someone's life chances like that.
	For different communities, there should be a range of measures to show that society expects parents to bring their children to school and to encourage them to attend school. In any community, some behaviour which results in the children being kept out of school is not acceptable. I am not saying that withdrawal of child benefit is the right answer, but we should consider all the options and the difficulties in the various communities, and make sure that we get it right.

Phil Willis: I have been listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. May I inform him that under a Labour Government there are 4,000 women in prison on short-term sentences, which is the largest number since the Victorian era? Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that Asian parents whose children go back to Pakistan or Bangladesh for six months would come before the courts for sentencing because their children had been deliberately excluded from school? Is that under consideration? The hon. Gentleman is very honest, as he usually is, in supporting the proposal to remove benefit. In a family of four, if the benefit for one child is removed, how does that improve the life chances of that family?

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman knows that, as Chairman of the Select Committee, I am trying to be as thoughtful as possible about the issue. I am trying to underline its complexity. I do not want to throw out of consideration anything that will help in tackling the diverse problems and in handling the different reactions in communities. The discussions and research that have so far occurred have raised some new issues. We may consider the option of child benefit withdrawal and then discard it. As I said, I would hate imprisonment routinely to be considered, as it should be the end of a long journey and is to be avoided at every cost.
	Of course, I come back to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough quickly and say that there must be incentives—and perhaps penalties—for people who take their children out of education for long enough to damage their long-term life chances. The House does not know what the right balance is, but it has every right to consider that question in terms of the real people whom we represent in our constituencies and not some unreal set of people and circumstances.
	Let us consider all the circumstances. For example, we have all been rather quiescent about the size of schools. Some very interesting American research suggests that truancy and reluctance to go to school are very much related to the size of the institution. We have all been part of the conspiracy that believes that big schools are cheaper and more efficient and effective. I remember visiting a school that I thought to be pretty large as it had 700 pupils; unfortunately, in those days, they were all boys. However, when I now visit comprehensive schools of double that size, I wonder what sort of community can be built in a school that has more than 1,000 pupils.

Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore share my concerns about the future of small sixth forms, which can also provide the sense of community to which he refers and deliver excellent results?

Barry Sheerman: That question may be relevant, but I want to concentrate on smaller schools. The building of communities is very important in any institution. Some sixth forms are far too small and some are too large. A sixth form must be of a viable size if a community is to be built; equally, schools should not be so big as to make it very difficult for that to happen.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was absolutely right to finish on the note of listening to pupils—something that is often left out in education debates. We must also remember, however, that the essence of a school is a community. The people in a school work and live together for a large part of the week and have all the hallmarks of a community. If we cannot build a community in a school, we are in trouble. Some of the schools that I have visited are struggling on the problem of building a community.
	Yes, there are some answers. We should look to smaller schools, homework clubs, family literacy classes and, yes, truancy officers. We need good practice on identifying the problems of truancy and working at them. The difference between good and average practice is dramatic. I have visited schools where staff have been working as a team to identify problems early. The most important thing about truancy is to nip it in the bud early, and there is a need to watch carefully which pupils are likely to play truant and check very quickly when they start failing to appear. That means staff visits; of course, we can all almost hear the National Union of Teachers saying, "So you're expecting members of staff to trail round to people's homes." In the best schools, good practice on truancy also happens in terms of team work, early identification and nipping problems in the bud. The educational welfare officer will be considering the individual circumstances of the child and family and tackling them by finding out whether the problem is bullying or whether the school is not as approachable as it should be.
	I suspect that not much progress will be made on getting the awful 0.7 per cent. truancy level down—let us realise that it is only 0.7 per cent.—through central direction, which will not deliver easy and quick results. Indeed, we have already seen that it has not done so. What will work most effectively is to find out what is good practice and who uses it, then to network and spread it as fast as we can. That is not dramatic, nor is it probably what the Government are looking for, because all Governments want to be able to say, "Look what we did, and we did it through this miracle piece of legislation." The work will be much harder than that. It will mean working in partnership with schools—a whole range of people, including governors—to ensure that this difficult problem, which will not go away, is resolved.

John Hayes: I am always delighted to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who brings a particular and extraordinary insight to these matters. If he had been able to continue for even longer with his sensitive remarks about incarceration, he would have begun to engage the interest of the whole House.
	Mark Twain said that he never let his schooling get in the way of his education. Behind that piece of wit lies an important truth. Education is not solely about the work of schools, and it is certainly not solely about book learning—it is also about attitudes and values. I guess that most hon. Members would agree with that sentiment, but some might not want to continue on the journey with me when I say that schools' concentration on that which is measurable has obscured much of the central purpose of education—to produce young people who are well balanced, well rounded, positive and have a clear sense of responsibility towards their fellow men and of duty towards their communities and their nation. If education is reduced to a factory process designed to manufacture a product to a common standard, the currency of education is debased and the role of the educator is minimised. That is the temptation for Governments of all political persuasions. They like targets on which they can be measured and on which they are able to champion their achievements, and shy away from dealing with more complex aspects of education such as the measurement of attitudes or values—if indeed those can be measured in any definitive way.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) said, if one forces people by law to go to school for 11 years and endure education for at least that long, one has certain responsibilities and duties towards them as regards the ethos of the school that they attend, the attitudes of the people who educate them, the behaviour of their fellow students and, ultimately, the quality of life that they can expect to enjoy. This debate is principally about the quality of life, not the measurables that politicians dwell on too much.
	The critical issue concerns our expectations about the quality of life that all students should be able to enjoy at school, regardless of whether they happen to be born and educated in an inner city, a leafy suburb or a rural backwater. I would never describe any part of my constituency as a backwater—although water is pretty prevalent in the fens—but historically in some rural areas, including the Lincolnshire fens, educational expectations have not been as high as they should be. It is not easy for teachers in such places, with very small schools and communities, to raise the horizons of individual students. However, that is the task in which they are engaged, and they do sterling work.
	Regardless of background, children should be able to expect a decent quality of life in the statutory period of schooling. When that does not happen, it is too easy for parents and communities to blame teachers, and for teachers to blame the people at home. I do not believe that good teachers or sensible parents do that, but it is an easy route to take. We have all heard, "If only they had sorted him out at school and got a grip on the situation, Johnny wouldn't be in the mess he's in today." Similarly, teachers sometimes say, "Why don't we have more support from home? If we could do something about the parents, the problem would disappear." Everyone who takes a keen interest in the subject, including educators and responsible parents, understands that there is a partnership between home and school: the one is inseparable from the other.
	Society has wider expectations of standards of decency and responsibility, and Members of Parliament have a duty to pay attention to them. Just as Governments are fond of limiting education to its measurable aspects, so politicians shy away from discussion of attitudes and values because they are hard to measure or change through legislation. However, if we do not deal with them, we ignore important aspects of the human condition that extend beyond standard of living, beyond material self-interest and beyond individual attainment to the quality of life that we should expect not only in schools but in society more generally.
	Against that background, I want to make three points. None is especially partisan; I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will be pleased to hear that as he criticised my honourable, noble and distinguished colleagues on the Front Bench for being too partisan.
	Standards of behaviour in our schools are undoubtedly declining. I do not pretend that that started in 1997, and it may be a product of lower expectations and the brutalisation of society. Conservative Members who are conservative to our very core instinctively believe that things were once better than they are. Perhaps that sentiment is in every true Conservative's heart. Perhaps the progressives and radicals who occupy the Labour Benches—I hesitate so that someone may correct me—similarly mislead and deceive themselves that things are inevitably getting better. That is part of the tension between ideas in this House. Yet it is palpably true that standards of behaviour in our schools have declined. We have evidence for that from several sources, including Ofsted. Its annual reports repeatedly draw attention to its anxieties about standards of behaviour. Teaching unions and representatives draw attention to the quality of life that their members and those whom their members teach have sadly to endure. Earlier in the debate, we heard about the increasing incidence of violence in schools, by pupils against teachers and pupils against pupils. They are all causes for sadness and regret, but they must be acknowledged. We should not pretend that everything in the garden is rosy.
	I am not a sycophant, but I make no apology for quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). I admire the comments that he made earlier today:
	"In some of our inner cities, as many as one in 10 pupils leave schools without a single GCSE and truancy is rocketing. Compare this with places like Redbridge or Buckinghamshire where more than 90 per cent. of children gain five or more GCSEs . . . For generations too many experts have told us all it is unfair to expect children from inner cities to strive for the same standards as everybody else. I say it is unfair to expect anything less."
	This issue is also centred on particular parts of the country. We know that there are profound problems in some of our inner cities, and among certain social groups. We also know that the standards that can be expected by parents and students on some estates in some parts of the country are all too low. So this is not simply a problem; it is a problem that disproportionately affects some of our most vulnerable citizens, and we have a particular and special duty to those people to address it.
	Similarly, truancy is increasing, and it is all very well for the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, to suggest that this is a matter about which we can be relatively complacent. I was surprised to hear him suggest that we could, because he is a responsible chap who takes his role on that Committee very seriously. The truth of the matter is that truancy is increasing. The Government's own figures tell us that it has increased in each and every year since 1997. The hon. Gentleman will know that the incidence of truancy is disproportionate in certain parts of the country and that it affects certain schools very seriously. I obviously have figures different from those that the hon. Gentleman is using.

Barry Sheerman: The House of Commons Library, which I normally rely on, has given me the figures for unauthorised absence in all schools for 1993–94, right through to 2001. Those figures do not change: they are 0.7 per cent. for each year. There is a little difference between maintained secondary and maintained primary schools, but that same figure of 0.7 per cent. applied for nine years.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman masks the truth using statistics, as people who are trying to mask the truth often do. Let me tell him the numbers. They have risen consistently, year on year. The number of days lost at all schools in 1997–98 had increased by something like 10 per cent. by 2001. We can bandy figures about, but it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that truancy is a significant problem, when Members on his Front Bench do. They recognise that fact, which is why they have set targets, made speeches about the problem, and believe that measures need to be introduced to address it. I do not want to open up a gulf between Labour Front Benchers and the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, so I suggest that he look at some of their speeches, study some of the measures, and hold further discussions with his ministerial colleagues.
	Ofsted certainly recognises the problem of truancy. On 6 February 2002, it suggested that 10,000 children are missing from state schools, and that no one knows exactly what they get up to when they should be in class. Mr. Tomlinson, the chief inspector of schools, suggested that some might be working "in the black economy". Unfortunately, many of them stray into criminal activity. Of course, there is no direct correlation between truancy and crime, but we know, from what the local constabularies and the social services departments of councils tell us, that there is a relationship between truancy and crime, and that should be a matter of grave concern for Members throughout House. Truancy is a significant and growing problem.
	Most significant of all, perhaps, is the fact that teacher demoralisation is a real problem. This is, of course, related to the quality of life that teachers can expect to endure in our schools. Given a choice between teaching in a comfortable school somewhere in the leafy suburbs of London or teaching in the inner city, it would take a brave, devoted and committed person to teach in the inner city. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) wants to intervene to tell me about his teaching experiences in the leafy suburbs.

Vernon Coaker: No, I am just listening.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman does not want to intervene; that was just a sedentary intervention. I know that he had an extremely distinguished career as an educator in the leafy suburbs—

Vernon Coaker: It was not in a leafy suburb.

John Hayes: Just a distinguished career, then.
	Given the choice, most teachers would, not unnaturally, opt for the quieter life. We have a responsibility to ensure that they are motivated, encouraged and rewarded for taking on the difficult challenges involved in educating the children who may not necessarily have the same support from home, and who will not necessarily come to school as well prepared, as their contemporaries out in the leafy suburbs, in which the hon. Gentleman certainly did not teach but which he equally certainly now represents.

Geraint Davies: In my constituency there is an economically challenged area which contains an education action zone. The Good Shepherd Catholic school in the education action zone had the highest level of unauthorised absences in the country last year, at 7.7 per cent. I am pleased to say that this year, the figure for unauthorised absences is down to 0.2 per cent., when the national average is 0.5 per cent. The secret is that the head teacher has been telephoning the parents on the first day of absence, asking why the pupil is not at school and working through the problems—which are varied, as has been mentioned—with the parents. The local authority is now employing people to do that. I mention this to make the point that even in the most challenging area that has the worst history of absenteeism—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is very lengthy.

John Hayes: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to be the first and possibly the only person to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) for his contribution to that improvement in the school, for no other reason than the fact that he has raised it in the House. It is important that we celebrate good work, because that is part of re-instilling a sense of pride and purpose in our teachers and our head teachers when they face challenges and difficulties.

Chris Grayling: rose—

John Hayes: I know that other hon. Members want to intervene to seek the very same kind of praise so that they can issue local press releases.

Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am not planning to issue a local press release but merely to ask him whether he believes that the amount of initiatives and paperwork that head teachers routinely deal with makes it more or less likely that they will have the time to do what the head teacher in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) has done.

John Hayes: I said that I would not be unnecessarily partisan, but part of the agenda in terms of maintaining the morale of head teachers and classroom teachers is to ensure that they focus on their role as educators and are not taken down the tributary of becoming managers. Of course, there has always been a management function associated with running any school, but it is also true that there has been excessive red tape in schools. I am less concerned about the pen pushing than about the confusion created by a succession of initiatives—some are contradictory and many overlap—that sap the energy, initiative and drive of head teachers, teachers and governors. That is the real problem that lies at the heart of my hon. Friend's question. However, to avoid accusations of not being balanced, I pay tribute to him as well for the work that he has done in highlighting that important matter on behalf of his constituents.
	The problem of discipline in schools is acknowledged by the Government and by the hon. Members for Gedling and for Croydon, Central. Only the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee does not acknowledge it, but I think that on this occasion we can regard him as a noble exception to the rule.
	I suggest that there are five things that we can do about the problem. I thought initially of four ideas, but four does not sound as good as five, so I thought of another one. First, we should be bold and brave enough to give schools more power to deal with these problems in ways they feel appropriate. In different situations, different parts of the country and different communities, different solutions will apply. In schools with a significant proportion of pupils from ethnic minorities, where Afro-Caribbean or Asian pupils may form the majority, solutions to problems will be entirely different from those relevant to disaffected, white working-class pupils. Of course there will be similarities and parallels, but such schools may well have to adopt different solutions that involve working with local communities and being sensitive to local needs and differences. It is appropriate to be much more bold in devolving power to local communities and institutions, so that they can sort out such matters.
	The second solution is to re-elevate the role of the educator. Every great civilisation throughout history—ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Persians, the Chinese—has valued and revered educators, yet early 21st-century western society demeans and diminishes them. What does that say about our faith in the future of our nation and our children? We should not only give our teachers more authority and the power to adapt to local needs to sort out such problems, but support them when they get into difficulties. One of the great cries of teachers is that they do not feel properly supported when parents and pupils subject them to legal challenges and other such difficulties. If we believe in teachers and we want others to do so, it is essential that we support them when they have problems with discipline.
	We need also to develop a curriculum that is more relevant to people's needs. As the hon. Member for Gedling will know—he probably experienced what I am about to describe, although not in the leafy suburbs—it is no fun taking out a battered textbook on a wet Friday afternoon and trying to teach the French revolution to a group of dissolute 16-year-olds who want to go home and do something much more exciting. Many teachers are faced with that prospect, and we must be more sensitive to the differing needs of pupils and groups of pupils. We need a curriculum that is relevant. If education is not relevant, we cannot expect to engage a significant number of those who do not see their future as academic and involving further and higher education. We need to provide an education that they regard as relevant to their real potential.
	We certainly need more inter-agency work. We must work much more creatively with the different agencies involved with truanting students and their families. In that regard, there is significant overlap between police, social services, other local authority departments, the voluntary sector and schools. Information is not always exchanged as effectively as it could be, and the experts involved do not always communicate well with each other. Parents and communities do not feel that such problems are being approached holistically. Labour and Conservative Governments have failed to grasp that nettle, but given that we are discussing the current Government, it is the Under-Secretary who had better grasp it—and with both hands.
	We need to be absolutely clear about what happens to pupils when they are excluded. As truancy has increased—I am surprised that the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee is no longer here to challenge my figures, but he can do so later—exclusions have diminished. They have diminished because the Government took the wrong decision. They set unrealistic and deeply unpopular exclusion targets that took power away from governors and head teachers, and did not enable teachers to follow their instincts on excluding pupils, even when such instincts were entirely justified and right.
	Part of the problem is that excluded pupils are often sent into a black hole. I have already mentioned the 10,000 pupils whom we know nothing about. Reports to the local education committee of which I was a member on what was happening to excluded pupils were usually summarised by the phrase: "Work is being set." We never heard what that work was, how it was going to be marked, whether it got there, whether it came back, or at what level it was set. All we knew was that work was being set and we were meant to satisfied with that. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and I did not have a chance to consider that further in our local education committee because of the lack of time. However, I am sure he was as concerned as I was that those pupils who were excluded sometimes—perhaps often—disappeared from the system.
	Pupil exclusion units often do a fine job, but we must be more certain about what education is being offered to excluded children. We need to have faith that exclusion does not mean permanent banishment to outer space. There should be more opportunity for children to move in and out of the system. There is a feeling that once children are excluded permanently from a single school, they are banished for ever. The approach needs to be more flexible so that people have another chance. We need to give them another bite of the cherry so that they can be brought back into the system to fulfil their potential.
	I have cited five ideas, none of which is partisan or, I hope, too negative. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is not in the Chamber to hear my non-partisan speech. If he were, he might have to revise his stereotyped ideas about the Conservatives. It is right that we should raise our sights beyond the partisan debate to a more glorious future, not least because, as Aristotle said:
	"Educated men are as much superior to the uneducated men as the living are to the dead."
	We do not hear Aristotle quoted often in the House, so I hope that hon. Members pricked up their ears at that. Although I would not go as far as Aristotle, I would go as far as Plutarch, who said:
	"The very spring and root of honesty and virtue lie in the felicity of lighting on good education."
	It is because of that that we have to raise our sights beyond the party political squabble.
	I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House are committed to providing decent quality education for all our children. I make no apology for saying that that applies disproportionately to the most vulnerable; nor do I apologise for saying that it is my responsibility and, I believe, the responsibility of the House to devote disproportionate time and energy to that group. We must bring all our skills to the problem so that our children get a fair and decent chance, especially those who are most disadvantaged.
	That is certainly our duty; let us make it our mission.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If contributions are kept brief, perhaps a greater number of hon. Members will be successful in catching my eye.

Colin Burgon: I hope that my brief contribution will also be effective and continue the non-partisan approach set by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes).
	It is necessary to retain a perspective about truancy and discipline in school. The overwhelming majority of kids in our schools are well behaved and do not truant, and the overwhelming majority of teachers do a highly effective job. As an ex-teacher of 16 years' standing, I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who told us that an irate parent had hit him over the head with an umbrella. I taught just down the road, and umbrellas were a luxury.
	It is obvious to anyone with any awareness that truancy is a problem for society. The figures have been mentioned, but they are worth repeating. It is deeply worrying that some 50,000 young people in England alone deliberately truant from school every day. Official figures show that 40 per cent. of street crime, 25 per cent. of burglaries, 20 per cent. of criminal damage and 30 per cent. of car thefts are carried out by 10 to 16-year-olds during school hours. Those figures are disturbing. We must all acknowledge that something needs to be done to change that and the attitudes that go with it.
	In my distant, although I hope not too dim, past as a schoolboy on the Gipton estate in east Leeds, to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred, kids who legged it from school kept a low profile to avoid both their parents and the board man. What disturbs me so much is that today young people who truant—I know that they are a tiny minority—feel no need to keep a low profile. Indeed, they flaunt their behaviour. Worst of all, in many cases the truanting is done with the support of adults who masquerade as parents.
	When we talk about truancy, we must acknowledge that we must vigorously address the depressing cycle of underachievement, apathy and the almost inevitable slide into antisocial behaviour and crime—a cycle that will be stubbornly perpetuated if we do not attempt to get to grips with the problem. That is why I welcome the Government's recently announced plans to base uniformed police officers in up to 400 schools in England's worst crime hotspots as part of their £90 million crackdown on truancy.

Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that recent research discloses that the majority of the crimes committed by such youths on other youths take place outside the school gates after school. Children who have been excluded or who are truanting intimidate children when they leave school. They meet up with their mates, press drugs on them and take mobile phones. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a case to be made for having police at the school gate when schools break up to ensure that the perpetrators are caught and to prevent such crimes from being committed?

Colin Burgon: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I was going to cover that later in my contribution.
	I also welcome the response of John Dunford, the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, to the Government's support for schools in their attempts to combat truancy. He said:
	"Headteachers use a wide range of measures to improve attendance, but too much truancy is condoned by parents".
	Parents are key to the problem. Unfortunately, the role of parents is not mentioned in the Opposition motion, and that is one of its great weaknesses.
	Similar support was given to the Government's measures by Steve Pilkington, from the Association of Chief Police Officers. He said:
	"This approach is not part of the police taking a soft option . . . youth crime is a complex issue and there is a need to adopt a range of responses—from working with children and young people in and around schools . . . to effectively targeting and dealing with serious and persistent offenders".
	I am pleased that the Select Committee on Education and Skills discussed that problem. It called for a review of the penalties faced by parents of truanting children who assist in letting 6 million days of education go to waste every year. No one, whether it be the Government, schools, teachers, parents or taxpayers, can condone that appalling statistic and its negative knock-on effects.
	Bringing parents into the equation is vital. The teachers I regularly talk to go along with that, although some are uneasy about the case of Patricia Amos, the parent who was jailed in Oxfordshire. However, I notice that that liberal organ The Guardian today reports that Ms Amos was visited 71 times in 12 months by social workers who tried to ensure that her daughters went to school. No one can say that an effort was not made to help that woman in those circumstances.
	The other issue that I have discussed with teachers—some of them are iffy about this, too—is the consideration of the plans to restrict child benefit to families whose children consistently truant and misbehave. All the teachers I speak to accept that we have to act decisively to address that problem, and I very much share that view.
	The Select Committee estimates that 80 per cent. of truants caught in sweeps of shopping centres were accompanied by an adult, often a parent. I congratulate the city centre truancy sweep that took place last October in Leeds, my home city, organised jointly by Education Leeds and the West Yorkshire police force, operating under section 16 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which deals with truants. It was a well-planned and organised sweep that took place over five days. The city centre was swept—figuratively speaking—daily, and a patrol allocated to cover other well-known high-risk truancy areas. During the operation, over five days, 328 children of varying ages from schools throughout the city were stopped. Significantly, the police reported a marked reduction in city centre crime over that week.
	Some of the excuses given by children who were wandering round the city centre were interesting. One claimed that she had a virus, so she should not have been walking around Dortmund square. Another claimed that she had sickness and diarrhoea, so I would not have advised her to walk round the Merrion centre. A third said that he had a hernia, but it did not stop him walking up the hill at Briggate, so he was doing very well. It is not surprising that the top three sites for apprehending truants were in Leeds city centre. In a way, that is a backhanded compliment to the council's work to make the heart of our city a more attractive place to visit.
	A study of those statistics yields much useful information. As I said, one glaring fact is that a high proportion of those 328 truants were accompanied by parents or adults. Clearly, we must therefore factor into our equation parents and their attitudes on this subject.
	I commend to the Minister yet another initiative being taken in Leeds—the authorised pupils pass scheme. Under the scheme, pupils who use local shops and amenities, or who visit public areas during normal school lesson time, can be asked to show a pass. The pass carries the name of the school and the pupil, and is entitled "Time Out—Authorised Absence Pass". The pass gives details of the pupil's absence from school, including reasons for the absence, the time out and the expected return time to school. The initiative is funded via private sponsorship and has enabled Education Leeds and West Yorkshire police to get the scheme up and running in the south Leeds area. The aim—thanks to new money from the Government—is to expand the scheme to the whole of Leeds. I ask Ministers to monitor and evaluate the scheme and, if it is successful, provide further funding to refine and enhance the project in the years ahead.
	No doubt we have all been watching "Coronation Street" over the past few weeks, as Ken Barlow has struggled with a difficult pupil, but the reality in schools is very different. I find myself in total agreement—not that I am after a job—with the Education Secretary's recent comment:
	"we will do what we can to support heads and teachers but without parents taking their responsibilities seriously we will not make the progress we want. Parents have a duty to make sure they are doing all they can to instil discipline in their children".
	Anybody who has read the university of Warwick study carried out on behalf of the National Union of Teachers entitled "Unacceptable Pupil Behaviour" will realise the debilitating situation that faces too many of our teachers across the country. There is considerable dissatisfaction among classroom teachers about the lack of support that they feel they get from senior management teams when faced with low-level but frequent disruption. Serious incidents, such as violence from pupils and threats from parents were less frequent but highly disturbing to teachers, who felt that they were being blamed in a climate in which parents were unprepared to take responsibility for their children.
	As a teacher who was pursued by a large and irate parent who had an even larger dog, I know that discretion is sometimes the better part of valour, and that one should keep out of the way and let somebody else take the responsibility. In many cases, however, the problems were reported as being due to a minority of children who take up a massive amount of teachers' time and effort. It is a minority of pupils who are responsible. It seems to many teachers that there are no effective sanctions in place, and that is why I welcome current Government thinking, which I hope will soon be turned into action, on such policies as the withdrawal of child benefit from the parents of severely disruptive pupils. If that debate has done nothing else, it has made people focus on the role of parental responsibility.
	Teachers do not go into the job to become experts in crowd control or unarmed combat, but because they want to teach, they want to open up pupils' minds to the opportunities before them, and, in many cases, because they have a love of their subject. To make sure that teachers can teach and pupils can learn in a calm and civilised atmosphere will cost money. We must face up to the fact that the solution will not come cheap. My view is that no classroom teacher should have to put up with violent and threatening pupils. When that situation arises, it places great stress on the teacher and also deprives other pupils of their right to learn. To exclude those who make teaching and learning impossible because of their behaviour must be our aim. As I said, however, that is a costly exercise.
	The system in Leeds of learning support units on site at nearly every high school, with properly trained staff, is expensive to maintain, but it is a cost that we recognise we must meet. Those pupils who cannot even be taught in a learning support unit are referred to a pupil referral unit, of which I think there are four in Leeds. I have nothing but admiration for the work that the staff do with some extremely difficult children, and they are worthy of our support. I am glad that the Government support both of those units with excellence in cities money and standards fund money.
	As a result of talking to teachers in my constituency, I have a few suggestions for the Minister—at least to match the five proposed by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—that could help create a more disciplined environment in schools. I hope that they are practical. First, there should be increased funding for and an expansion of pupil referral units so that violent and disruptive pupils can be removed from mainstream schools straight away. Secondly, there should be an enhanced pay and career structure for those who work in pupil referral units with our most difficult pupils—those who do the most difficult job should have the best career and pay structures available.
	Thirdly, a framework should be introduced that requires parents to exercise their responsibilities in relation to their children's behaviour in school. That should come at the end of a wide public debate, so that the conclusion reached carries widespread public support. Fourthly, we should make sure that, where possible, all schools have a secure site, that is, for example, effectively fenced. I remember refereeing a football match during which three kids who had hijacked a car drove across the pitch four or five times. Unluckily for me, my school was just about to score a goal. Nevertheless, such incidents—many of which are caused by outsiders wandering on to school premises and creating serious problems—can be addressed fairly simply and effectively.
	I have also spoken to teachers—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) who made this point is no longer in his place—who welcome the presence of the police at school gates at the end of the day. That has also had the beneficial effect of lessening shoplifting and other crime-related incidents in the surrounding area at going home time.
	Fifthly, increased liaison with the police in schools will help to reinforce the message that we need coherent and joined-up thinking to address all our problems. Sixthly, we should make sure that all senior management teams in schools place the greatest emphasis on supporting teachers in the classroom when it comes to discipline.
	Finally, will Ministers consider the effectiveness of a system of staff training in management of unruly pupils? Staff in pupil referral units are trained in a programme called Team Teach, which many teachers consider to be highly effective. If that is judged to be a useful tool for teachers, could we make sure that each secondary school had at least a couple of staff trained in Team Teach so that they could control effectively some fairly aggressive pupils?
	The suggestions that I have made are not partisan but I hope that they are practical and effective.

Andrew Turner: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon). I shall respond in a moment to some of his remarks.
	All Members, on both sides of the debate, have recognised the confluence of issues that lead to difficulties in and out of schools: truancy, discipline and bullying. Bullying leads to school refusal, truancy leads to crime, disorder and, in some cases, pregnancy, and discipline leads to exclusion and the possibilities of solving those problems. That is a complex web of conditions, into which I suspect that outsiders, among whom I number Members and Ministers, should tread with trepidation.
	That is why I want to comment on the contribution of the hon. Member for Elmet. He seemed to suggest a range of solutions that were exactly the sort that one would like implemented in schools. I would hope, however, that the profession would already be recognising and implementing—or at least influencing—such solutions, and that we would not be approaching the problem of indiscipline in schools and truancy on a top-down basis.
	I am sorry if that point is slightly outside the non-party aspirations of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is not in his place, but I recognise that Ministers feel compelled to do something. I am sure that we welcome many of the things that they have tried to do, but the final responsibility for ensuring the effective management of a school must surely rest with the manager of that school. A balance must be struck between the desires of Ministers—and, for that matter, Opposition Members—to find the right solution and the tendency to micro-manage. I hope therefore that we will show humility in our approach to the issue. We should not dole out just prescriptions, or even money. We should dole out responsibility and real power to those who have the difficult jobs of running our schools and looking after the condition of our communities.
	In recent years, there has been a proliferation of targets and statistics. It was evident from the friendly dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that statistics are as open to manipulation and misunderstanding as any other form of debate. When reducing unauthorised absence becomes a target, schools are tempted to authorise absence.
	I have been told of a case involving a friend of mine whose daughter persistently truanted from a very reputable school. The solution that the school adopted was to ring her parents and ask them to authorise the absences retrospectively. Otherwise, they would damage the school's statistics. I recognise that schools do not commonly adopt that approach, but anyone presented with the difficulty of solving such problems will search for a range of solutions. One of them is to fiddle the statistics.
	We have wonderful figures for registration, but pupils have resorted to post-registration truancy. There has also been a shift from one kind of exclusion to another. If a school cannot exclude permanently, it opts for a series of temporary short-term exclusions until the Government clamp down on the number of days allowed for short-term exclusions. All absences relate to a figure that Ministers have in mind.
	I congratulate the Secretary of State on alighting on a target for attendance. I welcome that approach because, without such a target, we cannot achieve the successful education at least in the narrow sense of the two senses that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned. We will not be successful if pupils are not in class.
	We must place more faith and confidence in, and offer more support to, the good sense and professionalism of head teachers and governors. We must also consider the local reputation of a school. Good discipline depends on clear signals from all levels in society backing those who are placed in authority. I recognise that those in authority can make mistakes, but it is incumbent on us—and particularly on those who sit on appeal panels dealing with exclusions—to recognise the relative importance of backing those who may have made mistakes from time to time. The good head teacher backs those of his staff who occasionally make mistakes and the good leader backs those of his supporters who occasionally make mistakes. It is important that we adopt such an approach because we must not undermine people responsible for those lower down the chain.
	We give head teachers an extremely difficult job to do and the least that we can do is back them. Therefore, I would like an end to the system by which appeal panels undermine head teachers. Governors must set the policy, head teachers must manage its implementation and an appeal panel should overturn the implementation of the policy in relation to an exclusion only if there has been a clear failure of process. The panel should then refer the matter back for further consideration. Nothing could be worse than leaving a head teacher red faced and impotent, sometimes in the face of a pupil who has persistently flouted the discipline of the school and perhaps acted to endanger the well-being of other pupils. [Interruption.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) for his support.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that schools are only a reflection of society. Of course they are, but they are extremely important not only in reflecting society but in developing it. I hope that society will support schools and offer more support to parents and carers by being less damning of those who do not measure up to our, the Government's and the media's prescriptions of how they should bring up their children. We should be less condemnatory, particularly of those who make a serious effort in the face of difficulty to bring up their children in a decent and honourable way.
	I wonder why the Frenchman was hauled off Princes street in Edinburgh and put before the Scottish courts simply because he slapped his child. I wonder why a Scot was similarly treated for slapping his daughter in the dentist's surgery. That is not the approach to discipline that I would have chosen but, fortunately, I do not have to make such decisions because I do not have children. I would not have made a foul-mouthed son or daughter wash his or her mouth out with soap and water, but I am not convinced that doing that just once is a matter that should be taken before the courts. We must support parents in the incredibly difficult job that they are trying to do.
	We should also support the police more effectively in the difficult job that they do. Therefore, I congratulate Labour Members on moving from the position that some of them and some of their predecessors took when they were in opposition. They recognise more than they did 10 years ago the difficulties that the police, parents and schools face.
	The case of Mrs. Amos in Oxfordshire shows clearly the extent to which liberalism has failed. A huge number of interventions by social services for more than a year failed to persuade Mrs. Amos to send her daughters to school. I found it almost heartbreaking that she should be imprisoned for her failure to do so, but we must accept that it was the right response in this case. However, we must also recognise the difficulties that cause children to stay away from school. Sometimes the problem is as obvious as the failure of school transport or the failure of the school. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough pointed out, the curriculum sometimes fails. However, well before the introduction of the national curriculum, my friend, Dennis O'Keeffe, identified the problem of post-registration truancy.
	Bullying in schools is a real problem that schools have acknowledged only recently. They have yet to deal with it successfully. I do not refer necessarily to high-level racist bullying, but to low-level intolerance of those who look different or speak differently. Appallingly, there is sometimes intolerance of the very able or of those who are very pretty. Such pupils are bullied, and that type of low-level disorder makes parents lose their faith in schools. It is no wonder that parents sometimes condone truancy because they need the child at home and feel that it is not worth their going to school.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Turner: Of course I will give way, although I was about to say that I do not intend to speak for much longer because I can see that other hon. Members want to take part in the debate.

David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman share the disappointment of many hon. Members on both sides of the House that the motion tabled by his party makes no mention of parents when it refers to tackling problems of truancy and bad behaviour? Should not parents, as well as schools, be a central part of the motion?

Andrew Turner: I do not share any such feeling because I have referred to parents in many of my remarks. However, we must recognise that parents have an incredibly difficult job to do in society.
	We have to offer escape routes for pupils for whom school is not a satisfactory experience. We have to enable them more easily to go to smaller schools, to go to different kinds of schools and to go into further education, perhaps before the age of 16. Perhaps they could take time out of school and return later. We have to be imaginative in the opportunities that we offer. If we do that, we will at least begin to be successful in tackling this most difficult of problems.

Caroline Flint: I am pleased to say that in his last few contributions the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has been agreeing with most of what the Government are trying to do. We can see from this debate that all parties care about truancy and want to do something about it, but it is fair to point out that the Conservatives had 18 years in government. The children who were truanting during the Thatcher years are now the grandparents of today's truants, so others must take some responsibility for the rot that has set in.
	This debate is not all about inner-city areas; it is about areas such as Doncaster and Barnsley in South Yorkshire, where a whole industry was wiped out and nothing was put in its place. The children who thought that they could follow their fathers into a job down the pit found that there was no industry to employ them. I make no excuses for mentioning that because today, with objective 1 funding and other support from the Government, we have a chance to turn that situation round. However, those neighbourhoods were left without a lifeline, and the rot set in because there was no support for them.

Andrew Turner: rose—

Andrew Selous: rose—

Caroline Flint: I will not give way because I have only just started my speech. Hon. Members can ask any professional in Doncaster who works with kids who have offended or with vulnerable families, and they will say that they now have countless opportunities to try to tackle those issues.
	I sit on the board of sure start in Denaby and Conisbrough, and we have funded five staff members to work with schools and families before kids even start nursery school. They try to make sure that there is a connection between the school and the parents. In some cases there is only one parent and in others it is the grandparents who look after the children. We hope that if we can create a good relationship with carers when children are three, we shall be able to sustain it throughout their time at school. That is part of the process of connecting parents to schools, which we are striving to do. Some parents do not respond to such support, and I will return to that subject in a moment.
	I want to bring some fresh evidence to the debate. I congratulate Doncaster council and South Yorkshire police on beginning a two-week operation of truancy sweeps, deploying 16 police officers and 16 education welfare officers in a targeted campaign. The interim figures from those sweeps show that during the first week alone, 291 pupils who were not in school were stopped; 96 were immediately returned to school, and 101 were in the company of a parent, but 63 of them had no valid reason for not being at school. During the first week the officers visited an additional 163 homes to confront parents whose children's attendance record was less than 85 per cent.
	One benefit of the campaign has been the high-profile and visible police presence, which I believe will depress the level of street crime in shopping areas in and around my constituency. I am delighted that constituents have mentioned seeing police vehicles marked "Truancy Patrol", which means that a wider message is being communicated to the public. Doncaster council is very willing to prosecute parents using the new aggravated offence introduced by the Government.
	Inevitably, as the sweeps took place in May, some of the 291 pupils stopped were on exam leave. However, schools must try to reinforce the message that such leave is a time for quiet preparation for exams, not for shopping, and it is not an extension to school holidays. We must ensure that there are opportunities for pupils on exam leave to study, if not in schools then perhaps with the library service, and parents must support them in that.
	There remains a problem with young people who are not sitting exams and therefore have no studying to do. Many have historically poor attendance at school, and during exam leave they have a lot of time on their hands. The situation of those who are excluded from the exam process reinforces the case for the Government to widen the curriculum to include work-based and vocational study from age 14. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) claims responsibility for that policy, but I know from my time on what was then the Education and Employment Committee that many Labour Members have been involved in campaigning for 14-plus options for a very long time. I welcome the Government's moves in that direction.
	A further problem exposed by the sweeps is that if children are in the company of a parent, the truancy team has no power to return them to school, even if they have no valid reason for being absent. The team can only give the parent a letter explaining the consequences of non-attendance and send a form to the school for the school and the education welfare officer to follow up. We should consider how we can strengthen the law in that respect.
	We have heard many contributions about the role of parents in relation to children's attendance at school, and I acknowledge that there are many reasons why children fail to attend school. The problem is multi-faceted, by any stretch of the imagination. Many parents need support, and although it may take some time, they become open to the idea of accepting it. Undoubtedly, however, there are hard-core parents who are given a huge amount of support but do not really give a damn. The level of parental connivance in truanting is extraordinary.
	I commend Doncaster council for its tough stance on poor attendance. It welcomes the additional powers made available by the Government, and in Doncaster the first parent is about to be prosecuted for the new aggravated offence. The council wants to guarantee that parents who do nothing about truanting—by which I mean that they do nothing to co-operate with any of the services that are available—will make their first court appearance within 18 weeks of a pattern of non-attendance being established. The council is obliged to provide the court with evidence of poor attendance over 13 weeks to prove a pattern. I hope that in Doncaster we will not see a case like that of the mother in Banbury, in which it took two years of work before a conclusion was reached. Stronger action, taken earlier, should achieve a result sooner.
	I know from talking to colleagues that there is concern about the removal of benefits. I welcome new powers such as parenting orders, and we need to think about how we can use them. I shall share an anecdote with the House. Discussion with a child who was truanting revealed that he felt that his mother did not give him much time. He was asked, "In return for your going to school, what is the one thing you would like your mother to do?" He replied that he would like her to sit and watch a football match on television with him. That seems ridiculously trivial, but when the mother was told that her son simply wanted to spend more time with her, she complied and the boy went to school. That is an example of imaginative use of a parenting order.
	There are, however, some families who are not doing their children justice, and deduction of child benefit may be a way forward. It is erroneous to suggest that that policy is an attack on the poor. If children do not attend school they will not achieve, and they will be relegated to a life of poverty. Along the way, they will set an example for their younger brothers and sisters. We should consider withholding child benefit until parents improve their attitude and their approach to working with the services, and then give it to them if they co-operate. That is all about having policies that provide support and take account of the complexities, but at the end of the day, it is about putting the child's interests first.
	People should not kid themselves that we do not consider deducting benefits for other reasons. If people refuse to work they can lose their employment benefit. If people park their cars on double yellow lines they will get parking tickets, regardless of their income. We have to consider poverty in the long term. We cannot give up on such children; it is important that we develop a sense of responsibility among parents. Schools exist to provide a quality service and a good education, but parents are responsible for their children. They have to take up that challenge, and we must ensure that they attend to it.

Boris Johnson: I am pleased to have the chance to speak in this important debate, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who plays a significant role in my life in so far as he prevents me from truanting from the House—if I were ever to think of doing so, which, of course, I do not—because he is the pairing Whip. It is largely thanks to him that I am here.
	I came into politics in the hope, of course, that my ideas might change things. I dreamt that a policy that I conceived might one day influence the Government—so imagine my surprise when on 22 March this year I heard that the Prime Minister was proposing to dock benefits from the parents of truanting children. I thought that I had seen that policy somewhere before, and looked up The Daily Telegraph of 17 January, where I found an article that had evidently inspired new Labour. The resounding penultimate paragraph said:
	"If parents will not inculcate discipline in their children, there seems no reason why there should not be a graded and means-tested system of fines, on the parents, for the results of their neglect and irresponsibility."
	I looked to see who had written those words, and I was astonished to see that it was me.
	I tackled a friend of mine, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North–East (Mr. Ainsworth), and asked him whether I had inspired the Government's policy, and he all but confirmed it. The Secretary of State is not now in her place, but perhaps other Ministers will be so good as to authenticate my paternity of that policy. It is a better solution than locking up Patricia Amos for 60 days. When the Minister winds up the debate, I should like him to tell me how he thinks the policy might work.
	Before we reach that solution, however, we need to consider seriously why we have been driven to those desperate expedients. The reason, of course, is that the position is bleak. I do not know what figures Labour Members are relying on, but our evidence suggests that truancy has risen by 11 per cent. since Labour came to power, and that violence against teachers has risen fivefold. I do not want to be partisan; I agree with the line taken by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). This has been a useful debate, but the Secretary of State was perhaps excessively complacent. Her line seemed to be that this was a chronic problem that had been going on for many years, so she could be forgiven for not attempting to solve it.
	There is no room for complacency; 50,000 children a day are truanting. They are blighting their own lives. We all know the figures: 30 per cent. of prisoners are ex-truants. They are blighting the lives of the rest of us. Society is now living in exaggerated terror of feral children. We are now so frightened of children on trains that when we see them mucking around, swearing and threatening people, we cower in our seats and we do not even intervene. Too often in this day and age, we pass by on the other side. That is ignominious and a poor reflection on all of us. The problem must be addressed, and it begins at school. That is why this debate is vital.
	What are the causes? I agree with the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough about the causes. Many hon. Members have said a lot about children being fed up with school and not being interested in their lessons. That may be part of the problem, but it is not all the problem. It is not enough to demand that teachers be so electrifying in their performance as to keep the attention of the likes of the hon. Member for Huddersfield and prevent them from goofing off, as he rather alarmingly said he did, thus setting a poor example to his constituents.
	It is not enough to ask teachers to pep up their lessons; the central problem is a loss of parents' and teachers' authority. The key reasons for that have been well adumbrated by my hon. Friends. Head teachers' power to exclude was taken away. Exclusion is a terrible thing, but it was a severe diminution of head teachers' authority to circumscribe them in that way.
	I talked to the head teacher of a primary school who has lost a great deal of authority over his own staff. He cannot decide whether to promote a teacher up the pay spine, as it is called, without a 27-page document from the teacher herself and an independent Whitehall assessor to decide whether that promotion is justified. That is a ridiculous piece of Whitehall bureaucracy, and it should be got rid of.
	Head teachers no longer have sufficient authority to discipline either teachers or pupils. That is ridiculous, and I agree with the tenor of much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). It is a shame that a head teacher in my constituency cannot even ask children who have broken several school rules to pick up crisps during break by way of punishment.
	It is true that there are no simplistic solutions. We cannot ignore the final point that teachers make to all hon. Members, which is that their problems and difficulties with discipline are very largely passed on—or subcontracted out—to them by the parents who refuse to discipline their children. Of course there are many reasons why parents may not be providing their children with adequate discipline. I am sure that Labour Members will be swift to leap to their feet to blame Thatcherism and 20 years of Tory misrule. Aye, they will blame society.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Boris Johnson: I do not want to take interventions. [Interruption.] Go on then, blame society.

David Taylor: I accept part of what the hon. Gentleman says, but when his own children are old enough he may find that in fact, it is quite difficult to give teenagers sufficient constraints and incentives to go along with their parents' wishes, whether in terms of school attendance or any other aspect of their behaviour. Things are not always the fault of the parents, although they may be.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for warning me of my fate when my children reach their teenage years. I listen to him with all humility and sincerity, but it is grossly patronising to many people who live on very low incomes and none the less produce polite, well-mannered and law-abiding children to say that everything is the fault of society.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Boris Johnson: Hang on; hear me out, old boy. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I mean I ask the hon. Gentleman to hear me out.
	It strikes me that the fault must lie fundamentally with the parents. In the past 20 to 25 years, we have seen a revolution in the relationship between children and adults in our society as fundamental as the revolution in the relationship between the sexes. Children no longer respect adult authority as they used to. There are many reasons for that, and in some ways it is a good thing, but in some ways it is a bad thing. We need to restore the chain of responsibility between child and adult, and if that means fining the parents of truanting and undisciplined children, I say that that is fine.
	I am reminded of a friend of my family—a single mother from Bridlington in Yorkshire—[Interruption.] Is Bridlington in Yorkshire? [Interruption.] Yes, it is. When we were discussing the fall of the Berlin wall, she said that she did not know about that because when she was at school her mother used to say, "Don't worry about history. Let's go off shopping." If some measure, such as the one envisaged by the Government, could stop that casual truanting, it would be a very good thing.
	It would be nice to find that the Government are prepared not just to filch an idea from a Tory paper, but to produce some serious ideas about how to carry it out. I genuinely believe that there is no problem more central to many of the ills of our society than that of truanting children and ill discipline in schools. I very much hope that the Government have taken those ideas on board and that they will produce practical solutions. If not, they can, of course, make way for those who will.

Graham Brady: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)—which I think I did!
	This has been an important if short debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) launched a typically trenchant attack on the Government's failures, which was succeeded by—I am afraid—a typically complacent response from the Secretary of State. The tenor of her remarks was "The problems of truancy and indiscipline are being addressed"; but, as even she was prepared to accept, those problems have become worse rather than better. She says that educational opportunities are being improved in inner cities. If that is so, why are the Government determined to lower standards of admissions to universities?
	On cue, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), enters the Chamber. Why are the Government focusing on lowering admission standards for pupils from inner-city schools, rather than concentrating on raising standards in those schools to give such children as good a chance of entering higher education as everyone else?
	There is a crisis in discipline in our schools, a crisis that is driving teachers out of the profession. It is making it impossible for other children to learn. According to the National Union of Teachers, 45 per cent. of those leaving the profession cite behaviour. Labour's response has been not to tackle discipline, but to prevent heads from excluding violent and disruptive pupils. A teacher from a private prep school whom I met recently made it very clear that he had left his job in a state school entirely because of problems involving discipline and behaviour. He told me that he would rather have swept the streets than remain in his former job. That represents a dismal failure—something with which we cannot be satisfied, and something of which the Government should be ashamed.
	Labour's response has been to set a target to reduce the number of exclusions, possibly the only target that the party has met. What has been the cost of meeting that target? The number of exclusions was reduced from 12,668 in 1996–97 to 8,600 in 1999–2000, but only as a result of the then Secretary of State's publication of Department for Education and Employment circular 10/99, which stated:
	"A decision to exclude should be taken only: in response to serious breaches of the school's disciplinary policy; once a range of alternative strategies have been tried and have failed".
	It was shockingly disingenuous of the Secretary of State to claim earlier that heads had always had freedom to exclude. They have not—and the present Government took away that freedom, through circular 10/99, when she was a Minister in the Department. The fact that they have performed a U-turn and recognised the failure of the policy and the damage that it did is no excuse, and does not absolve the Secretary of State of responsibility. Moreover, for her not to admit—today, in the House of Commons—to what she did was unacceptable.
	What prior strategies had Ministers in mind for dealing with a pupil who had threatened his teacher with a knife, or sexually assaulted another child in the classroom? What right did Ministers think they had to interfere with a head teacher's ability to maintain proper discipline in a school—to protect the safety and dignity of his staff, and of the children in his care? Their policy was clearly wrong; only someone who was detached from reality could ever have considered it appropriate or reasonable.
	Yet even when the policy had been changed—even when Ministers were saying that it was wrong to focus solely on reducing the number of exclusions, rather than concentrating on tackling the underlying problems—Ministers boasted in the House about reductions, hoping that they would continue along the same lines. In April last year, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), then an Education Minister, said:
	"Permanent exclusions have fallen by 18 per cent . . . and we expect further reductions. There is no evidence that that has been at the expense of other children's learning."—[Official Report, 27 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 621.]
	There is such evidence, and Ministers have belatedly accepted it—although one or two Labour Members still do not appear to appreciate it. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) boasted earlier about the reduction in the number of exclusions, although it had been achieved at the cost of massively increased indiscipline and disruption in schools and a huge blow to morale in the teaching profession.
	A one third cut in the amount of truancy has not been achieved. In fact there has been no cut whatever, and in secondary schools truancy has increased. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford pointed out, it has increased most in inner-city areas—the areas at which most of the Government's gimmicks and initiatives have been directed, and to which most of the money has gone. The number of days lost in schools because of truancy has increased in all big inner-city areas. All that has happened while the Secretary of State has been a Minister in the Department. She cannot blame it all on her predecessor; she must share the blame.
	What does Labour propose to do now? What will it do to tackle the results of truancy, about which we have heard today? What will it do about the 50,000 children who play truant on a typical school day? What will it do about the fact that 40 per cent. of street robberies and 25 per cent. of burglaries are committed by truant children who should be at school? I will not recite all the figures that have already been given by Members on both sides of the House.
	What are the implications for child drug abuse and teenage pregnancies? At least the Chairman of the Select Committee was only punting on the Thames when he was not at school, as he was supposed to be. We are grateful for that.
	The latest foray—the latest proposed gimmick—is the docking of child benefit. The Secretary of State was the only Cabinet Minister who was prepared to come out as a supporter of the scheme after the Prime Minister floated it—perhaps because, as the Manchester press reveals, Dame Jean Else, head teacher at the Secretary of State's old school, claims that it was her policy. Perhaps she offered it to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State brought it to the Government. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Henley: the parentage of the policy is obviously extremely doubtful.
	The key question is "Will this really happen, or is it just another attempt to grab a headline, like the absurd chaos of the Government's policy on drugs in schools?" The Government are swinging wildly from one extreme to the other. Just a few months ago, in January, the Daily Mail produced a report from DfES sources—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), who is a Government Whip for the time being, at least, should not disparage the Daily Mail, which the Prime Minister regards as the main yardstick of the success or failure of the present Government.
	According to the Daily Mail,
	"Schools could be told to rewrite their rules on cannabis to fall in line with the relaxation of drug laws and growing tolerance of 'recreational' drugs.
	Education Secretary Estelle Morris signalled her endorsement yesterday for changes which would end tough punishments such as suspension as expulsion for pupils who take cannabis.
	Officials in her department said schools should 'take account' of the move by Home Secretary David Blunkett to downgrade cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug when deciding their drugs policy."
	Also in January, there was an exchange on the subject of policy to control drug abuse in schools. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), will recall that he said:
	"It is unacceptable to take any illegal substance to school, but it is right that head teachers are allowed the discretion to make judgments about the powers at their disposal, whether that is no action, fixed-period exclusion or a permanent exclusion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 10 January 2002; c. 370.]
	There is a huge shift between that and what is now being spun by the Government in the media. We read and hear that they are getting tough on dealers in schools, and that there is zero tolerance for those caught supplying drugs within the school gates. In Committee, the Under-Secretary made clear the Government's belief that this was a matter entirely for head teachers. He refused to issue guidance to schools saying whether those dealing in or taking drugs would be permanently excluded.
	Labour's policies on discipline and truancy have been an abject failure. Ministers lurch from gimmick to gimmick, abandoning each failed policy in turn. They swing wildly from one prescription to the opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford highlighted the contradiction between the Government's amendment and this morning's announcement from the Department for Education and Skills. At a time when there is an intense focus on the difference between what the Government spend on public services and what they actually deliver, it is remarkable that their amendment notes that £600 million has been spent on
	"measures to tackle truancy and poor behaviour".
	The Secretary of State admitted that truancy rates have not improved while violence in schools has mushroomed. There can be no better example of the Government's failure to deliver than the words of their amendment: £600 million has been spent, yet the truancy rate has stood still—as the Secretary of State pointed out—and behaviour has got worse.
	The torrent of gimmicks and directives has failed. It is time that we had a Government who backed up heads and allowed them to maintain discipline. It is time that we had a Government who had real aspirations to raise standards in all communities throughout our country. Labour has failed for too long. In two or three years, they will be permanently excluded from office.

Ivan Lewis: On the whole, the House has been at its best during this debate. We have heard many important contributions and there has been a great deal of consensus on both sides of the House. There was only one exception: Opposition Front-Bench Members did not propose one new idea, one policy or one original thought to tackle something that is fundamentally important to the quality of education in this country.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) recognised that complex issues are involved: home, school, peer relationships and relationships in communities. There are no quick-fix, easy solutions. There are social problems, educational under-achievement, low aspirations and family relationship issues.
	We heard much about the role of parental responsibility where, interestingly, many Members shared a consensus. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson): new Labour may be a broad church but it will never be so broad as to suggest that one of our ideas originated from him. However, I am willing to suggest to the Prime Minister that he adopts the novel idea of getting children to pick up crisps as a solution to discipline problems in our schools.
	There was consensus among Members on the importance of parental responsibility, with one exception—an hon. Member for whom I have a great deal of respect: the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. He rightly talked constantly about prevention, support, early intervention and so on. He talked of people's right to dignity and equality of opportunity—all those aspirations are shared by Labour Members—yet he never talked about responsibilities; he talked only of rights.
	Today we have heard descriptions of situations where parents are given intensive support, unimaginable levels of resource, incredible tolerance and compassion, but despite all that they do not fulfil a basic responsibility—to get their children to school. In those circumstances, it is right that we tell parents that, as citizens, they have a responsibility.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made valid points about the curriculum and about listening to young people. He knows that our proposals for 14 to 19-year-olds make clear the need to reconfigure the curriculum, building it around the needs of individual pupils, and to raise the status of vocational education, which we have been unable to do in this country, under successive Governments.
	The hon. Gentleman said we must listen to young people. There has never been a Government who were more committed to engaging in a two-way dialogue with young people. We recognise that they are consumers and users of education and youth services and we have introduced a variety of initiatives. We held an open day this week. We have published a Green Paper on 14 to 19-year-olds. Young people were involved in the development of the design and evaluation of the Connexions service from the beginning. The hon. Gentleman was right to make his points, but he must accept that the Government are making more progress on curriculum reform and listening to young people than has occurred for many a year.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) rightly talked of the need to back head teachers, yet the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) criticised us for making absolutely clear where we stand as regards those who deal and supply drugs in our schools. We pointed out that when head teachers decide permanently to exclude such pupils, those decisions should be respected and should not be overturned on appeal. I should have thought—

Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ivan Lewis: I will not give way.
	I should have thought that we were backing head teachers with exactly the support that they suggested we should give them.
	We heard an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon)—

Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ivan Lewis: I will not give way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet referred to the importance of staff training. We must give our teachers and the adults in our schools the confidence and the skills to manage behaviour effectively in a modern classroom. We are investing in that staff training.
	My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley gave us examples of good practice in their constituencies. It is important to shine a light on good practice and to spread it, because in many parts of the country individual schools are tackling ill-discipline and truancy effectively.
	I want to make particular reference to the speech of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). It was a quality contribution which ended with five specific policy proposals—more than were made by either of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. The hon. Gentleman's contribution was measured and objective. I realise that the Leader of the Opposition has just entered the Chamber so I am sorry if I am irretrievably damaging the career of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but I have some serious points to make about his speech.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about our responsibility to support the development of all-round citizens. I could not agree more. That is one of the reasons why, from September, we shall be introducing citizenship as part of the statutory curriculum in our schools. That is one of the reasons why the Green Paper proposes a matriculation diploma at 19, which would recognise voluntary work, citizenship activity and participation in wider activities.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that in debates such as this one politicians shy away from discussion of attitudes and values. The hon. Gentleman is right—this is all about attitudes, values and principles. However, he will stop enjoying my contribution at that point. At the end of the day, we cannot shy away from the fact that for 18 years we heard the philosophy that there was no such thing as society and that we were simply a collection of individuals.
	That philosophy consigned whole families, whole communities and a whole generation of young people to the margins of society. One in three children grew up in poverty. Our aspiration for the same period of office is to eliminate child poverty. Those are the differences in values and attitudes that influence the Labour Government.
	The hon. Gentleman constantly pointed out that truancy is increasing. With all due respect, I must correct him: because the Government were so ambitious in their objectives, they set themselves the challenge of significantly reducing truancy. What is true is that truancy rates have remained static for seven or eight years. We are not content with that and we are determined to tackle it.
	I shall close my remarks by responding directly to the Front-Bench spokesmen for Her Majesty's official Opposition, who did not offer us a single original idea. I have several rhetorical questions for them. It is a good job that my questions are rhetorical because no answers would come from the Opposition.
	During 18 years of unbroken rule, where were the sure start initiatives? Where were reduced class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds? Where was the literacy and numeracy strategy? Where was the reform of secondary education? Where was the strategy to tackle problems in the early years of secondary education? Where were the proposals to reform the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds? Where were the learning mentors, the classroom assistants and the Connexions personal advisers? Where were the learning support and pupil referral units? Where was the commitment to ensuring that all permanently excluded pupils have access to a full-time education? Where was the message to parents that they have a duty to ensure—

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to ask questions of Conservative Front Benchers and then refuse to give way to them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for hon. Members' speeches.

Ivan Lewis: Do Conservative Members not want to hear the message?
	The difference between Her Majesty's official Opposition and this Government is that, as behaviour in schools deteriorated and truancy remained too high, the Conservatives did nothing. In contrast, we are waging war on bad behaviour in schools, because it undermines standards and leads to crime on our streets. Their legacy was one in three children growing up in poverty; we will eliminate child poverty. They consigned thousands to the margins of society; we will rebuild society.
	I urge hon. Members to reject the motion. It does nothing for pupils, it does nothing for parents, and it does nothing for teachers.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 334.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House applauds the fact that policies to reduce truancy and tackle poor behaviour are central to the Government's strategy to transform secondary schools; notes that, since 1997, the Government has spent over £600 million to support measures to tackle truancy and poor behaviour and that this has been supplemented by a further £66 million from this year's Budget, that behaviour is satisfactory or better in 11 out of 12 secondary schools and 49 out of 50 primary schools, that there are now over 1,050 Learning Support Units and 3,420 Learning Mentors in schools and that there are 331 Pupil Referral Units whose quality Ofsted reports to be steadily improving; welcomes the fact that the Government is promoting multi-agency initiatives such as Behaviour and Education Support Teams and Connexions that are crucial to addressing this issue, that exclusions have fallen by approximately 28 per cent. to 9,200 from their peak of 12,700 in 1996–97; supports the right of Head Teachers to govern their schools as they see fit; further notes that all permanently excluded pupils will receive a full-time education from September this year and that whilst overall truancy levels remain a cause for concern, action is being taken; further notes that children have a right to education and that parents have a duty to ensure that their children are educated; and believes that the Government's policies will deliver lasting improvements in pupil attendance and behaviour which will support the achievement of higher standards and prevent social exclusion.

Special Educational Needs

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move,
	That this House is concerned about the provision of education for children with Special Educational Needs; notes that last week was Autism Awareness Week; also notes the publication of reports by the National Autistic Society which shows that two-thirds of teachers in England and Wales believe that there are more children with autism disorders now than five years ago and that one in three children in special schools has some form of autism; notes a survey carried out by the Conservative Party showing that one quarter of special schools feel threatened with closure; is concerned by the alarming rise in teacher vacancies in special schools; condemns the threat to SEN services in the Education Bill; and calls on the Government to set out clearly its plans for this sector and remove the uncertainty which harms the education of children with Special Educational Needs.
	Special educational needs are not a glamorous subject; I get that feeling as the Chamber empties at their mention, which is sad. They are not a glamorous subject, but they are important. This is not an occasion for witty party political banter; it is too serious for that and, I am sure that the Minister for School Standards would agree, too sad—[Interruption.] I see that he is repeating what I said with disdain, so I shall say it again; it is too serious and too sad. The problem is the thousands of quiet, private little tragedies unfolding all over the country. I believe that the Minister genuinely wants to do his best for the many children who need special help in their education, but unfortunately he is constrained by his Government's dogmatic approach.
	We all care about children with disabilities. I was tremendously annoyed whenever the word "care" was used today to hear Government Members laughing—as if Opposition Members are here for any reason other than that we care about vulnerable people in our society. That is certainly why I am here.
	Children in Need, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Mencap, the National Autistic Society and many other charities do wonderful work and are brilliantly supported by millions of people throughout the country who care about the disadvantaged in our society. There is no doubt that individual teachers and learning support assistants who work in special schools or look after special needs children in mainstream schools do a remarkable job. I have recently seen many of them in action; their patience and perseverance are astounding. I could not do their job. It is no exaggeration to say that the achievements in the schools and special schools that I have visited sometimes bring a tear to the eye; those people have a difficult job and an uphill struggle, and many of them are trying hard to achieve so much. Much more, however, could be done if the Government put aside their rigid, dogmatic approach and faced the reality of the enormous challenge before them.
	The Opposition have chosen to debate this subject because it is often at the bottom of the list. One goes through the topical issues in education—exams, exclusions, expenses and so on—and at the end one says, "Oh yes, what about special needs?"

Phil Hope: You might say that.

Eleanor Laing: I am saying exactly the opposite; it has often been said, and one cannot help but feel that it has been said by the Government for many years. Local authorities, too, often say, "Oh, but what about special educational needs?"

Phil Hope: The hon. Lady criticises the Government for not doing anything about special educational needs. Naturally, she is aware that funding for special educational needs has increased dramatically under the Government. We published the first comprehensive White Paper on support for special educational needs and are implementing the key principles of inclusion and partnership. To describe that as not delivering is to misrepresent the situation.

Eleanor Laing: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong; I did not say that that was not delivering. The last Conservative Government did a lot on special educational needs, but not enough; more still needs to be done. The hon. Gentleman talks about not delivering; I have not got to that yet, but he has correctly guessed that I am going to say that the Government are not delivering. Producing papers and having ideas are not the same as delivering, but I shall come to that later.
	We want to give more prominence to the problem of providing a good education for children with special needs, because no one is more vulnerable or in need of help than a child who cannot communicate and wants to do what the other children are doing, but cannot understand—nor can his parents or teachers—why he cannot. That is what I mean by the thousands of private little tragedies unfolding throughout the country. We all know that they are taking place, but how can we try to alleviate them?
	The number and proportion of special needs children is increasing all the time. We accept, and Ministers will no doubt say, that that may be partly because of better diagnosis, but it cannot be entirely a product of diagnosis. The statistics, particularly those produced recently by the Medical Research Council and by the National Autistic Society, warn us beyond doubt that educating children with special needs is not just a problem, but a growing problem. I hope that the Minister will accept that.
	Knowing that the problem is growing, we are negligent if we do not heed that warning, or rather—I said that the debate was not an opportunity for party political banter—we are not negligent: Ministers are negligent if they fail to take the necessary action, having received the warning. I fear that that is what will happen.
	The Secretary of State's amendment to our motion states that we should applaud
	"the Government's strong record on supporting pupils with special educational needs, notably through providing a clear vision for their education and welfare".
	Will the Government never learn that vision does not mean the same as action? Having a vision is fine, as the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) said, and it is sometimes necessary, but publishing bits of paper does not mean that anything has been achieved.
	I feel sorry for Ministers, who have it drummed into them all the time that it is what they say that matters, not what they do. But if they are led by a Prime Minister who believes that saying something three times is tantamount to having achieved it—"education, education education"—[Interruption.] The Minister for Lifelong Learning is muttering away, as usual. Is she too repeating it three times? It is time the Government recognised that merely issuing words and documents is not enough. It does not actually produce results. Let us look at the facts.

John Redwood: Has my hon. Friend discovered, as I often do in constituency cases, that caring parents who have a child who needs special assistance often have a good understanding of the child's problem and a clear view of which local education institution would be best at handling it, but that the council often blocks the parents' preferred choice? Often they are told that there is not sufficient Government money coming through for that purpose. Does my hon. Friend think that parental choice should be better respected, and would she want the Government to make sure that that was possible? In my view, caring parents are often the best judges of what is needed.

Eleanor Laing: Unsurprisingly, my right hon. Friend is correct. In my constituency alone, I have seen so many tragic cases of parents who have spent months, and sometimes years, looking for the right educational establishment for their child, because they know their child's needs, only to find that the funding is not available or that, for some other bureaucratic reason—such as the fact that the establishment in question might be over the county boundary or in another region, or that the transport costs cannot be met—the child cannot get the best education available to him or her.
	There is no doubt that this happens. If I have seen that many, many times in my constituency, I assume that the problem is multiplied by at least 650 times around the country, and those are only the cases known to us as Members of Parliament. There must be many more.

Anne Campbell: How does the hon. Lady square her remarks with the fact that under the Conservative Government, funding per pupil fell in real terms from 1992 to 1997, whereas under the present Government, funding per pupil has increased by £200 per child? Surely that means that children now have a better chance of receiving the proper education for their special educational needs than they had in 1997?

Eleanor Laing: No—all it means is that the hon. Lady is bandying statistics. What we are talking about is people. [Interruption.] I do not see what is funny about that. It does not matter what the last Conservative Government did, and it does not really matter what the Government said they would do two or three years ago. What matters is that out there, in the real world, there are thousands and thousands of children who need more help than they are getting. If all the hon. Lady can see is some figures that she got from her Whips Office, that is very sad indeed.
	I shall examine the facts, starting with the increasing problem of autism. Last week was autism awareness week. I pay tribute to the National Autistic Society, which has done so much, not just last week but throughout this year—this is autism awareness year, as I am sure hon. Members know—to bring the problems of autism into public focus.
	There is no doubt that, for whatever reason, the incidence of children with autism spectrum disorders is increasing. I think the Minister for School Standards will agree with me on that point. I shall be interested to hear his comments. No matter how one looks at it, the problem is increasing. It is noticeable that the rate of autism occurring in primary schools is more than three times that in secondary schools, which is an unusual statistic, unless it means that autism is increasing exponentially, which it probably is not. That leads us to further questions, and they are difficult questions. I do not claim to have the answers, but we must consider the questions.
	It is possible that there may be many more pupils in secondary schools who have an autism spectrum disorder but who have not been diagnosed, and who have therefore spent their time in education failing to achieve, failing to communicate and being classed simply as disruptive. I wonder how many of the truanting pupils about whom we argued in the earlier debate this evening are, in fact, pupils with special needs which have not been diagnosed. Should not pupil referral units have specialist expertise in special needs and, indeed, in autism spectrum disorders? That is a genuine question. I think they should, but they do not. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on that.
	There is, however, no doubt that all the experts and even the Government recognise the importance of early diagnosis and early intervention, because children with unsolved problems grow up to be adults with unsolved problems. That is much more difficult to deal with. The cost to society—I do not mean in financial terms—in so many ways is so very much greater if someone who could be contributing to his or her community is, instead, excluded from it, and is therefore tragically seen as a burden, rather than as the asset which he or she could have been if the right help had been there at the right time, with early diagnosis and early intervention.
	Despite some good recent work by the Medical Research Council, which I accept was commissioned by the Government—not by the Minister's Department, but by the Department of Health—we still do not know the extent of the problem or the rate at which it is likely to increase.

Phil Willis: After 11 or 12 minutes, the hon. Lady is now making some interesting points. Does she agree that despite the importance of early identification of autism, especially mild autism, both it and conditions such as dyspraxia and dyslexia are all difficult to treat? Most children are individually different within the definition of those conditions. Trying to find educational solutions is incredibly difficult. To blame the Government or even the previous Government for that is not fair.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. The subject is extremely complex. Simple answers cannot be given to simple questions. The questions are complex, the answers are complex, and the hon. Gentleman is right. Every child who is in need of special help in his or her education needs it for a different reason. Each one is an individual, which makes it extremely difficult to deal with the problem.
	I partly agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis): I am not blaming the Government—I am warning them about what must be done. I am not blaming the Government for what has not been done so far; I am warning the Government that if they do not take heed of what we now know and take action now for improvement, the problem will get considerably worse. As I said, special educational needs are not a matter for party political banter. The hon. Gentleman makes a genuine point and I agree with his comments. I am sure that the Minister will proceed in the same genuine way.
	The problem is real, but one of the issues is that we do not know its extent. Again, I am not blaming anyone for that. Medical science is producing new ideas and evidence all the time, but we do not know the extent of the problem. A few weeks ago, I asked Ministers what percentage of children with statements of special educational needs were categorised as autistic last year compared with 10 years ago. The Minister answered that the information was not available. I accept that this Government were not in power 10 years ago, although they were in power last year, but it seems that nobody anywhere has collected the statistics even to let us know the extent of the problem.
	The statistics should be available. Whatever has happened in the past, I hope that Ministers will pledge today to continue to carry out further research. That is the pledge that I am seeking. Perhaps some of the enormous sums that are currently spent on sending out to teachers, head teachers and local authorities circulars and glossy colour brochures on a huge variety of subjects would be better spent on finding out more about the causes of the problems faced by some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend makes a very telling and interesting point. She and other hon. Members throughout the House will know that a very clear identification of need is critical in the statementing process if the education that is provided by special schools or in the mainstream is to be pertinent and relevant to the child's needs. If she is telling the House that this Government, perhaps like the previous one, do not know how many autistic children there are despite the statementing process, she is also leading us to suspect that they may not know how many children have various other types of special needs. That is very worrying information and the Minister must address it when he responds.

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend is right. That is exactly what I am telling the House. Nobody knows the extent of the problem; all that we know is that it is increasing. I respect the Minister's attitude on this matter. I hope that he will pledge to find out more and put Government resources into this important research.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. It is important to point out that in the Warnock report of 1979 and the Education Act 1981—a good measure that was introduced by the Conservative Government—the emphasis of statementing was to categorise children on the basis not of their condition, but of their educational need. The principle was to try to de-stigmatise children with special needs, and it is important that we maintain it. Once we go back to identifying a condition and applying resources only in relation to that condition, we will fail to take on the essence of what the Warnock report said and the principle to which successive Governments, including the previous one, have steadfastly adhered.

Eleanor Laing: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. As I said earlier, and as I will always say, we must treat children with special needs as individuals and not statistics. We must not simply consider them in terms of name of the disease from which they suffer, but treat them as individuals.

Gillian Shephard: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made a very good point about children's individual characteristics and needs, but my hon. Friend is making a point about diagnosis of those needs. That is her point, and it explains the need for research to allow such needs to be diagnosed. I do not think that there is much distance between her and the hon. Gentleman.

Eleanor Laing: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We are trying in this debate to emphasise how much more must be done from now on. I am interested not in repercussions, but in what has to happen from now on.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make some progress. I shall give way to him later.
	I suspect that the Government had no idea of the extent of the liability that they were imposing on local authorities by introducing their policy of inclusion. I forgive them for that, because the information was simply not available. None the less, although inclusion may have sounded like a fine policy when it fitted the general Labour jargon, it does not work in practice. While the Government have been relying on integration in mainstream schools for the vast majority of children with special educational needs, sadly, they have closed 167 special schools in the past five years. That seems a horrific loss of expertise and resources.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend mentioned the number of special schools that have been closed. Is she aware that in Gloucestershire, the Lib-Lab pact that runs the county council has a programme to close every single special school in the county? It is closing five schools because of the Government's policies.

Eleanor Laing: That is a disgrace. There are children who need the schools to which my hon. Friend refers and whose futures will be utterly blighted because they cannot go to them. I cannot imagine why the Government want to close those schools and put other special schools under threat of closure, creating enormous doubt in the minds of parents whose children are already taught there.

David Taylor: rose—

Stephen McCabe: rose—

Eleanor Laing: I must give way to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) before the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), but I must then make some progress.

David Taylor: The hon. Lady complains, perhaps rightly, about the paucity of the special needs statistics that might help in the development of appropriate policies. She also said that parents were best placed to know about their children's needs. Is she interested in a statistic from the National Autistic Society, which suggests that more than 75 per cent. of parents are either satisfied or very satisfied with the provision made for their children? Is that not an important base on which to build?

Eleanor Laing: Yes, that is very important, but to me it means that 25 per cent. of parents are not satisfied. They are the ones about whom I am most concerned in this debate.
	In talking about the policy of inclusion, I accept that in some cases involving mild autism or Asperger's syndrome, it is good for children to attend a mainstream school. Inclusion is right in many cases because it is good for social integration and allows a child to play with children of his or her own age. It is absolutely right in some cases, but not in all of them. The almost total reliance on integration has simply not been backed up with the necessary resources.

Stephen McCabe: I happen to agree with the hon. Lady, as I believe that we should keep open particular special schools, although we would be well advised to close others. Indeed, we have done some young people a service in closing some schools. Before making the charge that schools have been improperly closed—and in addition to asking for statistics about diagnosis—do we not need to know how schools that are engaged in the inclusion programme spend the special targeted resources provided in the delegated budgets? We need to know which local education authorities are spending that money appropriately and which are not. Should we not be collecting that statistic?

Eleanor Laing: Yes, we should. Even if the Minister will not listen to my requests for that information—I accept that he may do so—I hope that he will listen to the hon. Gentleman. Resources are often earmarked for special needs by the education authority, given to the school and then spent on something else. We know that that happens; I know of instances in which it has occurred and so does the hon. Gentleman, and there must be hundreds more examples throughout the country. That is another problem and another area where the Government simply do not have the necessary information. Now I must make some progress.
	The almost total reliance on integration has not been backed up by the necessary resources, so the issuing of a statement of special educational needs, although it theoretically confers on a child the right to a certain amount of time, expertise, therapy and care, is not implemented in practice. That is why people become cynical about politicians, and it is not surprising. No doubt Ministers see the statistics about the number of statements and the amount of money that is supposedly earmarked for their implementation. That may look good on paper, but sadly it does not work in practice.
	We spend hours in Parliament having theoretical discussions about statements of special educational needs. I hardly have one constituency surgery where there is not at least one parent, often more than one, who is almost in tears of frustration from fighting the local authority to have the terms of a statement turned into action—or, indeed, to have a statement issued in the first place; for many children it takes far too long to start the ball rolling. Parents have their expectations raised by the rhetoric of the Government, then have their hopes dashed by the reality of provision that is just not there.
	When one is looking after a special needs child, life is already difficult enough. The uncertainty that arises out of current policy and its piecemeal implementation makes it very much worse. What frightens me most is that the parents whom I usually see are able and articulate. They have managed to come to see their Member of Parliament, and have folders full of papers, reports, assessments and so on, many of which they have had to pay for themselves, yet even they cannot get the help that their children need. So what happens to the children of parents who are not articulate, do not know how to insist, and are so tired from looking after a disabled child that they do not have the energy to fight?
	I do not know what the Minister for Lifelong Learning is sneering at. This is not a matter for sneering. I am describing—[Interruption.] It is not patronising. I am describing what I see in my own constituency. I am describing real people, and the hon. Lady is sneering at them. I have their names written down here, but I will not embarrass them by using them. The hon. Lady is sneering in a disgusting way—it is totally intolerable. [Hon. Members: "Apologise!"] She should indeed apologise. I am sure that the Minister for School Standards, who is sitting next to her, will not take that attitude.
	For real people looking after children with real needs, it is a tragic situation. Getting help for one's child should not be an adversarial contest. If the Government are saying that every child has a certain right, they must set up a system whereby that right can be enforced. It does not happen like that in the real world. Parents should not have to fight year after year to get the education that their children need, deserve and, apparently, have a right to.
	The fact is that the resources are not there to fulfil all the obligations to the increasing number of children who need special help. I do not suggest for a moment that the solution is simply to throw more money at the problem—we know that it is not. There are not enough specialist teachers, speech therapists, special schools, classroom support assistants or training opportunities for mainstream teachers. There is insufficient infrastructure to help all the children and their families who need help. It is not even clear to most parents where they should begin to look for assistance. Some aspects are dealt by the health authority, some by the social services department and some by the education department, and much time and energy are wasted in convening meetings of all three authorities before a decision that will actually help a child can be reached. The inequality of provision throughout the country is almost incredible. I know of one instance where two little boys who go to the same mainstream school each require about the same amount of speech therapy each week, but one gets three times more than the other because they live in different health authority areas.
	What no one wants to hear from the Minister tonight is a complacent list of apparent achievements. That would be an insult to the thousands of families who are currently waiting for help. In the real world, special needs provision is in chaos. This is not a matter for party political banter, and it is very disappointing—

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Eleanor Laing: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady. It is time for others to have their chance to speak. Labour Members who keep sneering at a genuine attempt to ask genuine questions of a genuine Minister are doing their Government and the people they serve as Members of Parliament a great disservice. I am sure that the Minister will not reply in the tone that his hon. Friends who are doughnuting behind him are adopting at present. It is far too sad a situation for that, and I do not know why hon. Members are laughing. It is ridiculous to laugh or sneer. The situation matters too much to families who desperately need help.
	We all want to give every child in Britain today the best possible opportunity to develop his or her talents to their fullest potential. That is much more difficult in the case of children with special needs, so much more effort must be put into helping them. I believe that the Minister has, personally, the best of intentions, and I pay every respect to him for that. But good intentions are not the same as action, and it is action that we now need from the Government.

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	notes the Government's commitment to helping all pupils release their potential; supports the development of an education service that provides equality of opportunity and raises achievement of all children, including those with special educational needs; welcomes the Government's recognition of the important role of special schools and the forthcoming work to review and develop that role; further welcomes the recent report by the National Autistic Society and recognises the importance of early intervention to help children with autism; applauds the Government's strong record on supporting pupils with special educational needs, notably through providing a clear vision for their education and welfare in its 1998 Green Paper "Excellence for all children" and implementing an ambitious programme of action resulting in this House's approval of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, despite strong opposition from the other side of the House; commends the introduction of the new SEN Code of Practice and the principles of inclusion and partnership that lie behind it; further notes the development of national standards for specialist teachers and a range of training programmes and materials to support them; acknowledges the substantial increases in funding through both SSA and Standards Fund to support these and other initiatives; further notes that the Government will continue to ensure that the rights of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities are protected; and looks forward to the forthcoming Code of Practice to reinforce the rights of pupils with disabilities.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said that she wanted to avoid party point-scoring in the debate. That was a laudable objective, but unfortunately she wavered in her determination on that score on several occasions. This is not a party issue, because there is enormous interest in special educational needs across the House, and in the other place as well. I counsel the hon. Lady against patronising some of the people we are talking about and their parents. That is a temptation that we need to avoid.
	It is essential that all children, whatever their circumstances, should have the opportunity to develop to their full potential as individuals, to contribute economically to our society and to play a full part as active citizens in their communities. That is our conviction, which will be shared across the House. That is why we made it clear, right from the start of the Government's term in office, that we wanted substantially to improve provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. It was not by any means at the end of any list. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) said, the Green Paper on special educational needs appeared early on—in October 1997, less than six months after the general election. It was a high priority, reflecting the importance that we attach to the whole matter.
	The hon. Lady referred to the publication of the National Autistic Society's report for autism awareness week, which adds helpfully to our understanding of the developing picture on autism and raises some important issues. We are working closely with the society, which is doing important work. Several of the matters covered in the report will be addressed in the guidance to be issued by the autism working group, on which the National Autistic Society is represented. We expect that to be published in the summer.

Norman Lamb: On autism, I have been horrified by the stories that I hear parents tell of the battles that they have with, in my case, Norfolk county council's education department in trying to get funding for the Lovaas scheme and the Son-Rise programme. When they get somewhere near the point of securing funding, the health authority tells them that it will not fund the health element, or that speech therapy, which is part of the statement, will not be funded by the education department. There is no attempt to co-ordinate the efforts of the health authority and the education department. Will the Minister look into that to ensure that there is proper co-ordination and joined-up government?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right that some parents struggle to get satisfactory provision for their children. Anxieties about that lie behind our recent changes, to which I shall refer shortly. It is especially important that we join up the various sources of support and ensure co-operation to fulfil parents' needs. He is right to draw attention to the difficulties that many people have encountered.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister agreed with the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and therefore with me, that many parents have a struggle. Will he acknowledge that some parents are less able to struggle than others? It is not patronising to say that; I am simply stating the facts because I want to do the best for the most vulnerable.

Stephen Timms: We must ensure that the special educational needs of children are met, and that is the aim of our changes.
	The hon. Lady referred to the policy on inclusion, which the Conservative Government initiated in some respects. I was pleased that two thirds of the respondents to the report by the National Autistic Society believed that inclusion worked for children with autistic spectrum disorders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby said, that confirms the society's earlier findings. However, I accept that several pressing issues must be tackled.

Roger Gale: During the passage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, I raised teaching the deaf. I referred to a school in my constituency that had a superb unit for the hearing impaired. Does the Minister seriously believe that it has been effective to dissipate the energy and talent in that school and spread it thinly around a group of less specialist schools in the name of inclusion?

Stephen Timms: Those decisions should be made locally. I shall comment on special schools because the hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned them in her speech. Support should be provided in a variety of ways, depending on the resources available in each area, and the decisions should be made locally.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister says that decisions should be made locally. He knows that the school adjudicator in the case of the first special school in Gloucestershire to close lived in Darlington. How was that decision local?

Stephen Timms: Arrangements for dealing with such matters, including appeals to the adjudicator, are well known. In 1990, just over 99,000 pupils were enrolled in special schools; in 2001, the figure was just under 96,000. Conservative Members must bear the figures in mind. They give a different impression from Opposition Members.
	After the publication of the Green Paper in 1997, we issued the SEN programme of action in the following year. That led to the publication of a new SEN code of practice in November last year. Hon. Members will recall that we debated it twice in the House. At the end of last year, we also published additional guidance in the form of the SEN toolkit, which offers advice, for example, on writing statements, encouraging effective partnership with parents, and the role of health and social services working alongside education services. The Teacher Training Agency published material to help to identify teachers' training needs. All that constitutes a large package of support for those who deal with SEN on the ground.
	The new code has several key themes, which were widely welcomed in the consultation that we undertook. The first is identifying needs as soon as possible. I believe that we all agree that we have made much progress in recent years and that identification is important in ensuring that we fulfil the needs of as many children as possible. The second key requirement is improving partnership with parents and the third is taking account of the child's views. The fourth key requirement is promoting effective school-based provision and the fifth is reducing unnecessary paperwork for teachers.
	The code of practice is the cornerstone of our approach to SEN: a detailed framework in which people can operate and that is designed to promote a consistent approach by placing children with special needs at the heart of the process.

Mike Hancock: I worked in special needs for 10 years, and I was always impressed by the infinite patience of the parents of children with learning disabilities. The Green Paper in 1997 raised expectations and it was disappointing that it was ultimately resource-driven rather than needs-driven. Many parents feel bitterly let down because their expectations were raised only to be dampened because the resources were not forthcoming.

Stephen Timms: I shall comment on resources shortly, but the code took effect in January, and I expect parents to experience the benefits of the changes as they are implemented from now on.
	Our approach has been consolidated and extended through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. It strengthened, with effect from January this year, the right to a mainstream place for children with special needs when the child and the parents want one.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest wrongly described our approach to inclusion. It is pragmatic; the social and educational benefits of learning in a mainstream environment are undoubtedly significant both for the children and those around them. However, it will not be right for all children and families. In some cases, a mainstream place will not be appropriate and parents will request a specialist placement. We believe that pupils should be included in mainstream provision when their parents want that, subject to protecting the learning and safety of other children.
	Schools and local education authorities need support to implement a policy of inclusion, and the statutory guidance that was published last November establishes the new statutory framework for inclusion. It includes practical advice on some steps that schools can take to include special educational needs children successfully. We published support materials and a training package, which have been well received. They set out the way in which inclusion and school improvement can go hand in hand.
	The 2001 Act represents a big step forward in strengthening arrangements for collaborative working with parents. That is the key theme of the code. Hon. Members recognised that it was an important subject on which we needed to make progress. We have therefore introduced a new legal duty on local education authorities to provide parent partnership services and provision for resolving disputes when they arise. Of course, parents have a unique understanding of their children's needs and circumstances and we must give them the ability to play a key role in securing effective provision for their children and dealing with some of the frustrations that have arisen in the past.
	We have worked closely with others in implementing the SEN action programme. Ofsted produced guidance and training materials on inclusion for inspectors. Schools will be required to show the effective provision that they make for all their pupils, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. The revised national curriculum was effected from September 2000. It provides for a statutory inclusion statement, which is supported by the curriculum guidelines of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for pupils with learning difficulties. The revised P scales are the performance criteria for children who work below level 1 of the national curriculum. Again, they implement another proposal in the 1997 Green Paper. Both were issued in March last year.
	Guidance on supporting children with special educational needs has also been issued for the literacy and numeracy strategies.

John Redwood: Is the Minister worried that the policy of inclusion and co-education for these different types of pupil is made more difficult by the regularity and persistence of academic and quasi-academic testing under this Government? Perhaps the Government have overdone the number and regularity of tests, which we now discover from some of the research are not very effective. They end up teaching the better pupils how to pass them, but we then discover that those pupils do not know very much about English or mathematics after all, while some of the other children about whom we are concerned tonight feel even more excluded because of this persistent testing.

Stephen Timms: I do not agree with that. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to visit some of the schools that have made a huge success of implementing a policy of inclusion, while also making a great success of raising their standards as measured by the assessment process that we have in place. There are some superb examples where both are being achieved simultaneously, and I do not agree that there need be a conflict between them.
	We have established the 11 SEN regional co-ordination projects to bring together LEAs, health and social services, voluntary agencies and others to share good practice, and to develop their working together as they undoubtedly need to, in this area above all. Effective joint working is of key importance to young people with special educational needs.
	The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is also making a big contribution to securing fair treatment for disabled young people. It extended the coverage of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to education, outlawed discrimination by disability in education for both teachers and students, and placed a duty on schools and LEAs to plan ahead for disabled pupils and to increase accessibility to schools' premises and to the curriculum. Those changes take effect from September. That is another major step forward, a further realisation of the Government's commitment to make a reality of better provision.

Phil Willis: Before the Minister finishes this section of his speech, will he tell the House what the involvement of the Learning and Skills Council is? Whether or not we think that the Government are delivering on SEN provision for children up to the age of 16, many of us fear that when children move into further education, they do not get the same support as before, and parents do not feel that they have the same rights as before. I would be interested to know what the Minister feels about that function of the Learning and Skills Council.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that progress has been made in schools. There is still a good deal further to go, but good progress has been made. We want comparable progress in further education. The duty arising from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 also applies to the activities of the Learning and Skills Council. We have supported that by funding and by capital, and I think that we can be optimistic that we shall see comparable progress in that sector; it may be following a little distance behind, but not very far.

Phil Willis: I raise this issue because I understand that the Government are now considering removing sixth forms from schools, creating sixth-form college provision throughout the country, and removing 14-to-19 provision from further education colleges. If that is the case, it is a significant change of policy, which will affect special educational needs. I would be grateful if the Minister could either scotch that rumour, confirm it, or at least tell us what the relationship between these new organisations and special needs provision is to be, when he has got his Minister's briefing.

Stephen Timms: I am very happy to scotch that rumour. I am not sure quite what its source was, but it is certainly not in any of the proposals that we have put forward, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had read carefully—as I would expect him to—the documents that we have provided. There will, of course, be a role for the LSC in planning, but the suggestion that we are going to take the sixth forms out of schools is entirely erroneous. Indeed, the Green Paper refers to ways in which we can simplify the expansion of sixth forms, where that is appropriate.
	We have ensured that better resources are available to support the active policy of inclusion that we have introduced. This is a key part of this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has referred to it already. Education spending as a share of gross domestic product fell from 6.5 per cent. in the mid-1970s to not much more than 4.5 per cent. in the mid-1990s. Last year, it was back up to 5 per cent., it will rise to 5.3 per cent. by next year, and the Chancellor has foreseen further rises beyond that in his Budget statement. The resources that we need to make a success of the policy are becoming available.
	That is certainly the case with recurrent funding, and the average recurrent funding per pupil will have risen in real terms by more than £760 a year by 2003–04, compared with 1997–98. The support that we provide for SEN under the standards fund has risen year on year, and it is running at record levels, supporting expenditure of £91 million in 2002–03, which is more than five times the amount available in 1997–98.

Mike Hancock: While I accept that many parents welcome the opportunity provided by inclusion and have seen its benefits, an increasing number do not regard it as the ideal solution to the educational needs of their children. There is a great worry that the choice of those parents will be ignored, and that they will be forced into a corner and have to accept what they consider to be the second-best method of achieving their child's full potential. Where does the Minister rank parental choice in the pecking order of priorities when placing someone in education?

Stephen Timms: I assign to it absolutely pivotal importance in these decisions, and that is the basis for the framework that we have put in place. There is undoubtedly an enormous amount to be gained from mainstream provision for disabled children and children with special educational needs, where they can benefit from it. It is also undoubtedly the case that many young people who have not been in mainstream provision would have benefited greatly from it. We want to ensure that it will be possible for those benefits to be available in the future. But that does not apply to all children and young people by any means. There will, therefore, continue to be provision in special schools and elsewhere for those who will benefit from that. The role of the parents in contributing to those decisions is central.

Mike Hancock: What would the Minister say to an LEA that believes that inclusion is the only solution for the long-term educational needs of such young people, closes special schools and denies a choice to those parents who would have liked their children to stay in special schools, the ethos of which has existed for decades and which have provided great educational benefits for children? What will happen to LEAs that deny their responsibility to provide parents with that choice?

Stephen Timms: That option is not available to LEAs. Parents who are unhappy with a decision made by an LEA can go to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, and the tribunal's decision will be binding. I have already referred to the parent partnership requirements that we have imposed on LEAs, and all this will ensure that parents play a key central role in contributing to these decisions.
	In resourcing all this, we have also made a lot of progress on capital spending. Capital spending on schools has more than trebled since 1997–98, and it will go up again this year and next year. Within that, the schools access initiative is providing £220 million over the current three-year period. In the current financial year, £70 million is being provided to improve access to mainstream schools for pupils with disabilities. That includes lifts, ramps and disabled toilets, of course, but also carpeting and the acoustic tiling of classrooms to benefit hearing-impaired children, and the provision of blinds and paint schemes to benefit visually impaired children. These are real practical benefits that will widen opportunities for pupils, and that level of capital investment is about 10 times that of 1997.

Phil Willis: On capital investment, I have Henshaw's school for the blind in my constituency. It deals with young adults, from 16 upwards. Most are deaf-blind and come to the college from all over the country. The school is an independent charity that desperately needs to provide new facilities to meet the new Care Standards Act 2000. What access does that school, and others that offer what the Government require as alternative provision, have to capital funding to meet the requirements of another piece of legislation?

Stephen Timms: I should be happy to look at the position of the hon. Gentleman's local school. About 10 times more capital is being invested in making the changes that we need than was the case a few years ago.

Roger Gale: The Hampton hearing-impaired unit in my constituency was a state-of-the-art, purpose-built unit with specialist teachers, concentrated on one site but within a mainstream junior school. The effort has been dissipated, and no amount of capital will replicate all those resources in every school and the teachers to go with them. It simply does not make sense.

Stephen Timms: Clearly, a decision has been made that the best way of providing support for the children in the hon. Gentleman's area is through the new configuration that has been introduced. I am not familiar with the circumstances there, but I emphasise the enormous benefits for children of being in mainstream education, where that is possible, and of being given the support to make a success of that. Opposition Members are losing sight of that in some of their interventions.
	We are committed to ensuring that staff have the skills to recognise and address the special educational needs of their pupils. To obtain qualified teacher status, all trainee teachers must demonstrate that they can identify pupils with special educational needs, know their responsibilities as teachers under the SEN code of practice and how to seek advice from specialists. From September, all those who are awarded QTS must be able to demonstrate that they can differentiate their teaching to meet the differing needs of pupils, including those with SEN.

John Mann: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: I need to make some more progress, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
	For teachers already in post and other staff, we are promoting the creation of new or enhanced training opportunities through two £1 million funding streams in the current financial year supporting training activity by special voluntary organisations and higher education training providers. We are intending to commission new training resources directly in a number of areas, for example, ensuring greater access for pupils with disabilities to PE and sport, and providing a training video for school governors linked to the SEN code of practice.
	We have also recognised the importance of investing in the early years to make sure that children get the right help early on and have the best possible start to their education. This is a fundamental change. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, significant numbers of children are entering secondary education without their needs being met, and we do not want that to continue.
	In March last year, we announced a £25 million package in support of SEN in the early years, including support for establishing SEN co-ordinators—SENCOs—in early years education settings and area SENCOs, with a target of one area SENCO for every 20 non-maintained settings by 2004.
	We announced last year that we were drawing together a range of agencies to develop guidance for professionals working with children with disabilities in the birth to two age range and their families. That guidance is ready and will be issued shortly for consultation. There will be a separate but linked document on early intervention and support services for children whose hearing impairments have been identified early, and that will be produced in conjunction with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. Those two sets of guidance will make a big contribution to addressing the needs of very young children and will reinforce the importance of effective partnerships with parents.
	In everything that they do, schools rightly want to ensure that the work that they put in to helping all their pupils to learn is properly recognised. We are committed to supplementing the information that is already in performance tables with information about how far schools, including special schools, help their pupils to progress between the various stages of their education. The performance tables, following piloting work, will include value-added measures from 2002 for secondary schools and from 2003 for primary schools. We want to do still more in that area.
	There is a great deal more to do if we are to realise our aims. Much of our work since 1997 has focused on widening access and opportunity for children with SEN through improvements to the statutory framework. We are going forward in partnership with schools, local education authorities, health and social services departments and the voluntary sector to bring about real improvements.

John Mann: Statementing in my local education authority is a third of the national average. What advice, guidance or training are LEAs given in determining how to statement children?

Stephen Timms: A good deal of guidance has been given, and I have referred to a number of elements. With the regional SEN consortiums, we are making sure that good practice is spread throughout the regions and that successful LEAs can impart the benefit of their experience to those that have not been as successful. I hope that we will increasingly see good practice being uniformly operated across the country.
	We have not reached our destination yet, but we are well on the way.

Mike Hancock: rose—

Eleanor Laing: rose—

Stephen Timms: I will not give way again.
	I welcome the opportunity of this debate to re-emphasise our commitment to make further progress, which, I know, reflects a high priority that is shared across the House.

David Rendel: Let us start with the good news. The good news is that society's growing awareness of special educational needs has, over the past few years, made this a much more civilised country in which to live.
	One of the commonest mistakes made by people in the second half of their lives—the over-50s, to which group, sadly, I belong—is to believe that since their childhood, everything has been getting gradually worse. I do not believe that, and if there is one thing about our society that has undoubtedly improved during my lifetime, it is the way in which people who have some form of special need—whether that be intellectual, emotional, or physical—are treated.
	Let me be fair and say that the Government have cause to be congratulated for contributing to this change in society's attitudes. First, they introduced their 1997 Green Paper "Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs" and then in 2001 came their amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Both measures were very welcome. However, before the Government get too complacent, l wish to press them on one point. Given that the target date for implementation of the measures set out in the Green Paper was 2002, I hope that the Minister winding up for the Government will take the opportunity to provide the House with an update on where they are with their objectives.
	To return to my point, in our parents' days it was common practice, sadly, to shut away people with physical or mental disabilities in an institution, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Gradually, during our lifetimes, that has changed. Now, quite rightly, we accept that everyone has the right to opportunities to make the best of their talents and abilities, however great or small those may be.
	The waste of talent—the waste of human lives—that used to occur is greatly reduced. Let me give an example from my constituency. Only a few years ago, a young lad with very severe congenital physical problems wanted to go to a local mainstream comprehensive school in west Berkshire. The school simply was not adapted to meet his needs, but the head teacher had the courage to fight for the funds to make the necessary structural changes and, to its credit, the local authority paid up.
	The boy went to that mainstream school and was very successful. He obtained good exam results, joined in school expeditions and was popular with his schoolmates. He ended up as head boy and is now a successful university student. He, the local authority, and the head teacher who fought to enable him to be educated alongside others without his level of physical disability deserve great credit.
	However, the real success of that story is what happened not to that young man, but to all the other young men and women in that school. They learned far more lessons than he did. They learned what it was like to have a disability, what help he needed, and how much they could gain from him and his companionship. They also learned that, to do that, it was sometimes necessary to give a bit in return. They had to take turns helping to push his wheelchair; they had to help him upstairs; they had to carry things that were too bulky or heavy for him to carry.
	That example serves to illustrate some wider themes. First, society benefits from an inclusive education system that is right in principle. Wherever possible, the individual requirements of children with special educational needs should be met within the mainstream educational system. We all benefit from the talents unlocked as a result. Secondly, schools and teachers across the country—the front line—deserve to be congratulated on their hard work and dedication in meeting the diverse needs of the children in their care. Thirdly, they undertake that work in the context of a frequent shortage of money, and the constant development and expansion of our understanding of special educational needs.
	That is not the only problem; there is also a lack of joined-up thinking across the education system as a whole. For example, what happens when SEN pupils move through the education system? Sometimes, we discover that facilities are in place to meet their requirements at primary level, but not at secondary level. The standard of provision varies widely across the country, and sometimes such pupils move across the country. As a recent Audit Commission consultative paper pointed out:
	"LEAs are working towards inclusion at different paces and using a range of approaches—often without a clear and coherent strategy . . . the support and educational opportunities children with special needs get vary depending on where they live and what school they go to."
	None the less, mainstream schools are not right for everyone. Sadly, however much LEAs try to include young people with special educational needs in such schools, for the foreseeable future at least, there will always be some for whom mainstream schools simply cannot provide properly. Special schools also face major problems.
	According to provisional departmental figures for 2002, there are 14,900 teachers in maintained special schools, compared with 15,100 in 2000, and 15,500 in 1997. The teacher vacancy rate for maintained special schools is 2.4 per cent, which is double the rate—1.2 per cent.—for maintained secondary, primary and nursery schools. Unlike elsewhere in the maintained sector, the trend in vacancy rates in maintained special schools is upwards, not downwards.
	Underlying all those difficulties is the question of funding. The medical advances of the previous century were such that many people with natural disadvantages can live happy and successful lives as never before—a development that must be welcome. Moreover, such lives often last much longer than in past centuries. It is therefore hugely important that schoolchildren in mainstream schools study alongside others with different natural disadvantages, so that they can learn how to help them and how to get the most out of such schoolmates. However, that costs money. Schools must be given the necessary resources to cope with special educational needs, especially where the pupils' needs are so great that they cannot reasonably be met in a mainstream school.
	I shall illustrate these points by considering some examples. We have—sadly, I should say we did have—several excellent special schools in my constituency, but I want to contrast just three, the first of which is the well-known Mary Hare grammar school for the deaf. Anyone who visits it is struck by the outstanding results that are achieved there by some of Britain's most profoundly deaf youngsters. I have never forgotten my first visit. As I was wandering down a corridor, I suddenly heard, as if from some distant place, the beautiful sound of a solo clarinet. Ignorant as I then was of the fantastic musical abilities of many deaf children, I was amazed to discover that a school for deaf children could not only contain many talented individual musicians, but put together an entire orchestra of musicians, just like any mainstream school.
	Of course, the teachers need special training and the pupils need special help, and the cost of running the school is such that the local authorities sometimes baulk at the expense. Luckily, its reputation is so high that it can still flourish, but who could blame the local authorities—constantly strapped for cash as they are, thanks to real-terms cutbacks by central Government—for hesitating to spend much more on one Mary Hare pupil than they must spend on a mainstream, comprehensive- educated pupil? That is a real dilemma for the local authorities, and it is up to the Government to help them redress it.
	The second example is Priors Court school, in Chieveley, to which it is even more difficult to persuade local authorities to send autistic children, despite the good work done by the National Autistic Society. Its facilities are outstanding. For example, it has an amazing swimming pool, with lights and sounds that provide a wonderfully stimulating environment. A very high teacher-pupil ratio gives each child the individual attention that they need to enable them to play a real part in society as adults. Thanks to some generous private individuals—one in particular—some children, at least, are getting the real start in life that they probably could not get anywhere else.
	Sadly, that school can be contrasted with what was Enborne Lodge school. Although situated in Newbury, it was originally an old Greater London council school. When Mrs. Thatcher—as she then was—closed down the GLC in a fit of pique, the school was transferred to Lambeth borough. It would be difficult to think of a less suitable London borough. Of course, within a few years, Lambeth's own financial problems led to the closure of the school. What a waste.
	While in existence, Enborne Lodge took under its wing some of London's most difficult pupils. Some had committed terrible crimes, such as burning down schools and committing violent acts against family members and others. Such children often came from violent backgrounds. Their parents beat each other up, and sadly they often beat and abused their children as well. None the less, at Enborne Lodge those children were given a completely new start in life. The children had emotional and behavioural difficulties, and for the first time in their lives, they were valued for what they could do instead of being despised for what they could not do.
	Enborne Lodge often discovered hidden talents. Some of the pupils became first-class sportsmen and sportswomen. Some took their exams and went on to university and to important jobs in the community. The head teacher believed that all of them would probably have spent most of their lives in jail if they had not been to Enborne Lodge. The cost of the school, which in the end became too much for Lambeth to bear, was far less than the cost to society had those pupils not been given a second opportunity in life and, instead, been left to rot in prison.
	The costs of providing properly for those with special educational needs have to be weighed carefully against the often even greater costs of not providing for them properly. At a recent hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, which was called to discuss the closure of the dome, David James, the former executive chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company, made an interesting comment. He said that all too often the Government have such an obsession with getting the cheapest possible service available at any one time that we often end up by spending a great deal more in the long run. The Liberal Democrats have frequently said that, and I was delighted to have it confirmed by such an authoritative source. Moreover, nowhere is it truer than in special educational needs. Short-term thinking, driven by the need to reduce costs, simply results in other costs. There are costs to society, because of the talents and abilities that are wasted as a result, and there are financial costs, because other budgets are often left to pick up the pieces.
	Education must be about unlocking the talents and abilities of individuals. That is what SEN provision is about, too. In contrast, league tables and testing assume that all children start their school life equal. The danger is that those with special educational needs are left by the wayside. We cannot afford to let that happen, and we must not let that happen. We must not fail those who need us most.

Shaun Woodward: The Minister has come under something of an attack. I was surprised by that because over the years the subject of special educational needs has been a matter of consensus rather than combat. SEN policies have been criticised before. I shall remind the Minister of a speech in which it was said:
	"Let me tell the Minister that we need more help in the country now. We need more residential educational facilities, and more respite for parents; we also need to provide more day provision for autistic adults. The Government must begin by reviewing the needs of the forgotten children."—[Official Report, 17 May 1995; Vol. 260, c.310.]
	That is the sort of speech that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) might have made, but in fact those were the words of the then Member for Finchley.
	Special educational needs are important. They involve a vulnerable group of people, and the House needs to be cautious when it chooses to use such people as the subject of an Opposition day debate. It is easy to make criticisms that turn vulnerable people into political footballs without providing adequate ideas about how we should deal with the problem.
	Indeed, we have been dealing with the problem for a long time. The solutions evolve as we learn more about the problems of children with SEN and children with autism. The shadow Leader of the House, when he was an Education Minister in 1992, said:
	"We hope to establish a consensus and to achieve the greatest possible agreement in order to identify the best ways to serve, help and support the children who deserve every support and help."—[Official Report, 3 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 1134.]
	Again, I caution the hon. Member for Epping Forest about the dangers of turning the debate into a combat rather than a matter of consensus.
	The problem of a shortfall of specialist teachers is not new either. Back in 1994, it was said:
	"There is a shortfall of available specialist teachers. The number completing courses in teaching pupils with severe learning difficulties fell from 200"—
	just 200—
	"in 1989 to 80 in 1993. The number of teachers of hearing-impaired children qualifying has fallen from 150 to 110. The British Association of Teachers of the Deaf reports an average age of more than 40 for new trainees and a serious fall-off in younger teachers. Special schools and support services are having difficulty in filling appointments with qualified people."—[Official Report, 9 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 38.]
	We need to be careful of ignoring the fact that the problems are not new. They are continuing and will remain with us for as long as the problem remains with us.

Eleanor Laing: Strange as it may seem, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a matter for party political banter—as I said. He is right to say that the problems have always been with us and are still with us now. We must not look back at statistics, but forwards at what can be done. If a consensus that allows us all to work together can be achieved, let us achieve it.

Shaun Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saying that. However, she needs to achieve greater consensus within her party, which faces the eternal problem of how to fund policies. She talks about the importance of greater resources and more provision, but if a party is committed to reducing Government spending to 35 per cent. of GDP, it raises the fundamental question of where it is going to make the cuts. Knowing her as I do, I am sure that the hon. Lady would want to ring-fence this area. Clearly, we would wish to give her the opportunity to say so this evening.
	I shall remind the hon. Lady again of the words of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) a couple of years ago:
	"The ambition to develop special schools as centres of expertise to collaborate with and support mainstream schools is a correct aspiration".
	He was absolutely right. The head teachers of special schools in my county, however, say that they have heard such ideas before. They are absolutely right—they have heard them before. They are all too well aware of the funding implications. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire continued:
	"The issue is how that is to be afforded."—[Official Report, 5 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 628.]
	The hon. Lady therefore needs to consult her colleagues on this issue. She also needs to bear in mind, when she puts forward this combative motion, the words of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), among others of her hon. Friends, who recently said:
	"What goes on in the classroom and the school is only a small part of the education that the child needs. Especially in the case of a child who suffers from . . . autism".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 9 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 238WH.]
	We must therefore see the issue in its real context.
	The real criticism relates to how the problem was dealt with before 1991. The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the problem of statistics. The fact is that before 1991 we did not even count the numbers. There is real criticism to be made of those lost years, for the sake of those forgotten children—today's adults—who suffered so much. The statistics are important, and she is right to remind Ministers of the importance of continuing to collate them.
	The hon. Lady referred earlier to all those tragedies, but we must also be careful to avoid talking only about tragedies. As a result of the changes in our thinking, on which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and others have commented, we—including the hon. Lady's party, when in office—have achieved notable success. We must therefore be careful to avoid pointing only to what is going wrong, not to what is going right. The number of pupils with statements has increased each year since 1991, but the reason for that, of course, is that we are diagnosing those children. There are not suddenly more of them than there were before, but now we know where they are and who they are.
	How are we to respond to the problem? Again, it is to the credit of the Conservative Government that the Education Act 1996 sought to give effect to the principle that pupils with special educational needs should normally be educated in mainstream schools. We must not lose sight of the importance of that decision, and the real progress that was achieved when that Government made it. As a principle of provision, the present Government have continued that policy since the election in 1997. That is right, and there have been some fantastic successes. In 1991, 165,875 children were identified as pupils with statements. That figure was up by nearly 100,000 in 1997, and today it is 269,000.
	Crucially, those children have gone into mainstream education wherever possible. Let us celebrate that success. In 1991, 42 per cent. were in maintained mainstream schools; today that figure is 61 per cent. That is a good thing. In 1991, 54 per cent. were in special schools and pupil referral units; by 2000 that figure was down to 36 per cent. That is a cause for real celebration. That inclusion was achieved by the hon. Lady's party when in government, and was continued by the Labour party in government. Consensus across the House has been important in achieving that. I note the importance of caution with regard to turning the issue of children with special educational needs into an area of political combat. We have done well to keep it away from that, and we now need to be cautious about moving it into the arena as a political football.
	In opposition the Labour party produced the document "Every Child is Special", which rightly drew attention to the fact that
	"too high a proportion of the resources devoted to special educational needs was being spent on bureaucratic procedures",
	and that too much time was spent on
	"confrontational relationships between parents and local authorities."
	The Government were right to tackle some of that. They were also right to increase the funding in special schools, despite the fall in the overall balance by 20 per cent. We should acknowledge that that funding has gone in. We should also acknowledge the Government's success in making it possible for children in mainstream schools to have access to such funding. That is not a criticism of the previous Government, but an observation of where our priorities as a society were.
	In 1996–97 the extra budget made available to help to make the mainstream accessible to disabled pupils was £10 million. In 2001 it was £50 million, and over the next three years there is a commitment to spend £220 million under the schools access initiative. That is a good record, but we can do more.
	The motion draws on the document "Autism in schools: crisis or challenge?" produced by the National Autistic Society. I am proud to be involved with that organisation, and I have enjoyed helping it with fund raising. We owe the society a great debt for the work that it has done. However, let us be fair about the figures. Even the society's current report says that it is surprised by the numbers of children with autism. It points out that only 90 per cent. of all teachers are trained in the specific problems of children with autism, but it realises that catch-up inevitably has to follow diagnosis. Training of teachers will follow recognition of the problem.

Norman Lamb: The Disabilities Trust makes the point about the crucial need for early diagnosis and assessment. Lost years can have a fatal effect on a child's development. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more training needs to go into early diagnosis and assessment?

Shaun Woodward: I agree with that, and towards the end of my remarks I shall have a suggestion for my hon. Friend the Minister that will involve a dialogue with the Treasury.
	Part of the Conservative party's criticism of the Government's approach to education is that it is too centralised. However, the hon. Member for Epping Forest should look more closely at the report from the National Autistic Society that is cited in the Opposition's motion. The society wants local education authorities to receive a strong lead from the centre so that they can deal with the problem. It wants central Government to tell LEAs to direct their resources to tackling autism and to concentrate them on providing teachers with more specialist training in dealing with the problems of children with autism. That is not a question of one size fits all; those at the sharp end of dealing with autism say that a lead from the centre will bring about fundamental changes.
	We have heard much talk about what has been achieved in hon. Members' constituencies, and it gives me great pleasure to refer to my constituency in St. Helens. Luckily, we have just succeeded with a bid for a new school in St. Helens for children with special educational needs. Through the work of my LEA and its successful leader, Susan Richardson, we received the top award of £5 million. The LEA is providing the extra £1.5 million, and in two years the school will open in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. It will take 170 children, with specialist teachers and specialist training. That must be a step forward, and I am grateful to the Government for providing the money.
	However, no matter what we do, the solution for some children with autism will not be found in mainstream education. As the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, early intervention is crucial. If we meet the children when they are two or two and a half and intervene intensively on a one-to-one basis, there is a chance that, with special help, they can be integrated into mainstream education when they are five or six. I am sure that all Members would want that.
	I recently came across the case of a young boy called Toby. He was three when he was diagnosed with autism in 1996. He lives in Camden with his mother, who went to the local authority and said that she needed special help for her boy. Camden had a school for children with special educational needs, but no special provision for children with autism. The boy's mother, who is an enterprising and energetic woman and works in the theatre, got the resources together to create a project called the Treehouse school. Five or six years later, that school has 30 children of primary school age.
	I have been carefully complimentary about the Government's policies, so I shall direct my next remarks to my hon. Friend the Minister. The Treehouse school wants to expand its facilities so that it can take 80 children. There is no other such facility in Camden, and all but two of its 30 pupils are paid for by LEAs.
	The school is running an appeal to raise nearly £11 million for its expansion, but £2.5 million of that is for VAT, which will find its way to the Chancellor. I am sure that he will find excellent ways to redistribute that money round the country, but I ask the Minister whether it is sensible to expect the school to raise those extra funds before it can build facilities for children whose places will be paid for by an LEA. After all, we are trying to tackle the problems of children with autism and we are encouraging the charitable sector to come up with creative solutions. The school in Camden is an excellent solution, and it fulfils a need that was not previously being met. Treehouse is an excellent model. It is doing pioneering American work that is changing the treatment of autism among young people and children of primary and secondary school age. If we mean what we say, and if we are a reforming Government in every area, we may need to consider reforming VAT to help special schools to do their work.
	In their motion the Conservatives call for the Government
	"to set out clearly its plans for this sector".
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest spoke about vision, and I have to say that not only have the Government displayed vision since their time in opposition, when they published a paper on the subject, but there has been action, in my constituency and throughout the country.
	Today I asked charities, such as the one cited in the motion, what they thought of Government policy. First, they are delighted with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Secondly, they feel that the legislation is better than ever before in enshrining the rights of every child with special educational needs. Thirdly, they commend the national autism good practice working group and the national initiative for autism screening and assessment. The people at the coal face think that the Government are doing well.

Eleanor Laing: The theory that the hon. Gentleman puts forward is right, but does he not agree that there are thousands of parents who have to fight to get what is due to their children? A statement of need is issued and parents are told that the child has certain rights, but the local authority, the health authority and social services are unable to honour those rights because the necessary infrastructure does not exist.

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and she is making a wonderful case for championing the most vulnerable children. I only wonder, in light of what she said, why special educational needs was not a central part of the speech made by the leader of her party earlier today, in which he said that he would champion children. I have just read the press release of that speech, and I cannot find a word about children with special educational needs or autism.
	I know that last week, which was national autism week, the Conservative party carried out a survey, and surveys are important in raising awareness. In the same week the party published its first important document on education—10,000 words of it, after eight months of intensive work. It is all about how we might begin to modernise education, but in 10,000 words there was not one word about autism and only half a line about special educational needs. There was not a policy or a proposal.

Eleanor Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Shaun Woodward: No, I am about to finish my speech.
	This is an important subject, but if there is to be anything more than combat, and if the leader of the Conservative party means to champion children, he must take the most vulnerable, those who need to be championed, and include them in his speech. Of course the hon. Lady's speech in the House this evening was important, but is she saying that it was more important than that of her party's leader? Last week was national autism week, so why did the Conservative leader not refer to autism if it is important enough to dominate the party's parliamentary time? It is important to match the rhetoric with action.
	In the report on education that the Conservative party produced last week, there was nothing about autism but a great deal about Gladstone. When I was at school I learned about Gladstone in the context of the 19th century being a period of reaction and reform. Gladstone was indeed a radical reformer; the problem with the motion is that it is all reaction and no reform.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I point out to right hon. and hon. Members that there is not a great deal of time left in this debate, so brevity would be helpful?

Gillian Shephard: I am delighted to have the chance to contribute to this debate on a very important subject. I should like to start by saying that it should be absolutely evident that there is no political disagreement about the importance of special educational needs, but that is not the same as saying that there is no disagreement throughout the education system about how those needs are best met. Perhaps more than on any other issue, there is constant and vigorous debate between professionals and parents about the relative merits of special schools and supported education in mainstream schools.
	I shall reply briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). He cannot imagine that the document published last week or the speech made today represent the Conservative party's final words on education, and we have initiated this debate to raise a number of issues, including autism.
	The watchwords for this debate, as for other education issues, should be diversity and choice in so far as they can be achieved, especially in rural areas, and flexibility in the system, bearing in mind the variety and complexity of the educational needs of the children we are talking about and the fact that those needs are rarely static. To those watchwords we should add the need for the fullest possible information for, and the involvement of, parents and the best achievable co-ordination of the different responsible agencies locally.
	What has been interesting about this evening—it would be equally interesting if we had more time—is the fact that we all bring our own experiences to this debate. We have heard about some moving examples from hon. Members' constituencies. I know, because I have heard him say so on many occasions, that the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment, now the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having himself attended a special school, is very much in favour of inclusiveness and educating children with special needs in mainstream schools. Although the Government of whom I was a member certainly stressed the importance of moving towards, where possible, as much inclusion as we could, my own experience of more than 30 years in education, one way and another, has influenced me to differ from the right hon. Gentleman's view.
	My memory goes back to my experience of a post-war primary school in rural Norfolk, where the concept of special needs education, except for the blind and deaf, was quite unknown. As a result, in my 30-pupil primary school, children with pronounced special needs were not educated, but seated and, when possible, kept occupied next to the teacher and alongside us. That same teacher, in a two-teacher school, was also the head teacher. She was responsible for organising the work of about 15 children of all abilities between the ages of seven and 11. As a result, the special needs children got no chance at all.
	When some residential special schools were opened in Norfolk in the early 1950s, the life chances of the children alongside us and their counterparts in all the other schools were transformed beyond all imagining, especially given some of their family circumstances.
	In the intervening many decades since then, the pendulum of educational fashion has swung back and forth. We are currently in a phase that is worrying many heads of special schools. We heard what the Minister for School Standards had to say this evening, and I hope that we shall hear further reassurance from his colleague, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, when she makes her closing remarks. However, given the number of closures that have taken place and the examples of the LEAs' attitudes that we have heard about, there is no doubt that many head teachers of special schools feel that those schools, and the loving care and devotion that they and their staff provide, are under threat.
	No one could seriously argue against the rightness of inclusion for all pupils, especially those who throughout their lives, because of their disabilities, may in any case feel excluded from mainstream life. It is a question of how best to balance the needs of any particular child at a given point in his or her life, and how best to equip that child to realise his or her full potential. That, surely, is the point of inclusiveness.
	What is needed—we are not there yet, and we were not there in my time either—is the utmost flexibility between the special school system and supported education in mainstream schools. It is a pity if the dedicated work done in special schools is somehow devalued in the eyes of those who work in them because of the swing of the pendulum. We need both routes for these children, but with many crossing points between them at every stage.
	Because of the need for crossing points, an essential feature of the education and continuing development of children with special needs is the closest possible co-ordination and co-operation at local level. We can all give excellent examples of that. Because of the time constraint I will not give lengthy examples from my constituency; I merely say that it is possible for a special school to work closely with a local training centre, which can in turn work closely with a further education college.
	I did not agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is not here now, about what went on in FE colleges. In my experience at any rate, the work of FE colleges has been one of the great unsung successes of our age. The excitement and satisfaction gained by young people from their status as students is an object lesson in real inclusiveness, which I hope will not be adversely affected by the new regime of training and skills councils.
	The main difficulty is coping with the anxieties of parents. They need to know their rights with regard to statements, and they need the greatest possible reassurance at all times. In no area is collaboration between all relevant agencies more vital. Like every other Member, I find that the most distressing letters in my postbag have come from parents who know that something is wrong with their children but are having to put up with delays and, sometimes, failure to communicate on the part of the various agencies. They feel that they are being pushed around through various kinds of bureaucracy, while having to cope with the appalling uncertainty involved in suspecting that their children may be different from others.
	Many such parents are reassured by the knowledge that their children will be catered for by the specialised skills of a special school. Despite the best will in the world, a child inappropriately placed in mainstream education, even with support, may be a source of continuing worry and uncertainty for parents. Parents worry about whether the next class teacher will be as understanding as the present one, whether the child is being mocked or bullied and is not telling anyone, whether the support assistant will stay in her job, and whether the hours of support will be reduced.
	That is not to denigrate the excellent work done in mainstream education for children with special needs. Clearly the appropriateness of a child's placement is the most important issue; but the parents' interests and peace of mind should not be overlooked, and nor should their responsibilities to the other members of the family. I think that a special school placement can help a whole family to survive, providing support that comes not least from other parents of children at the school.
	It has been a privilege to speak in the debate. Let me end by saying that there is no one right route. There is a variety of routes, which can be opened through facilitation of the links between the two main pathways. We did not achieve that, and the present Government are not achieving it yet, but that is the direction in which we must go.

Stephen Ladyman: I do not usually take part in Opposition day debates, because they tend to be choreographed rituals. First, the Opposition spokesman has to describe all the problems of the world as though they started on 2 May 1997 and everything went downhill from then. Then the Government Front-Bench spokesman has to respond by saying that we are actually making steady progress towards some nirvana, and so it goes on.
	The beginning of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) did nothing to lift my depression. Although she said that she did not want to turn the debate into a party political football, she did everything she could to make it so during the first 10 minutes of her speech when she spoke in party political language. However, her contribution improved thereafter and she raised some serious questions that I hope we can air presently.
	The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) also raised serious concerns and made some important points. However, the Opposition seem to have overlooked at least some of the Government's achievements. They should recognise our achievements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) said, the Government have increased spending on education for children with special needs by 20 per cent. in real terms. That is not nothing—it should at least be acknowledged.
	The Opposition seem completely to have forgotten what has been achieved by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. It has put parents' preferences first in the legal framework for decisions about a child. Those provisions might not yet be working effectively and that is a legitimate subject for debate, but parents now have the legal right to insist on a mainstream place for their child if they want it. That is in addition to their previous and continuing legal right to insist on a special school place.
	Greater inclusion in mainstream education means that local education authorities must constantly review special school provision in their area. I can understand why the Conservative survey found that 25 per cent. of special schools felt threatened. How many of those schools were in Conservative authorities? Conveniently, that information was not included in the Conservative motion.
	We all have a responsibility to monitor the provision available in different education authority areas and to make decisions accordingly. It is sad that special schools feel threatened. Many of them—including those in my constituency—are doing a fabulous job, and it would be a tragedy if we lost them. It is up to us, as Members of Parliament, to make that case to our local education authorities; we must make sure that they realise the importance of the work of those schools.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman speaks with some pride of the 2001 Act; but I and some others had some quarrel with it. The Royal School for Deaf Children in Margate, in my constituency, also takes children from his constituency. Is he proud of the fact that, under the Act, the Royal School, which is not a state school, and other members of the national association for special schools, suffer discrimination? Should not they, too, be given the state help that they deserve?

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman raises points that are not covered by the Act. The Act gives parents the legal right to insist on a mainstream school place and puts a duty on schools to provide access for disabled people and people with special needs. It discriminates against special schools only in the sense that they no longer have a captive market of children to attend them. In any case, a good local authority will make sure that it works with special schools to preserve their provision.
	The Government are doing exactly that. A school in my constituency, but run by Wandsworth education authority, has just received £3 million for rebuilding work to provide for the needs of its pupils. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench are doing good work and we should acknowledge it.
	I have exchanged the ritual abuse with Members on the Opposition Benches. I have fawned appropriately on my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, so I hope that now I can turn to the constructive part of my contribution and talk about the issues raised by the motions. I want especially to talk about autism because, as Members know, I am chairman of the all-party autism group.
	There has been discussion today of consensus on autism. The all-party group has 150 members from both Houses and all parties, and I am willing to bet that there is consensus among them on the need for provision for autistic people. There is probably some consensus on the progress that this Government have made, and probably consensus too on where there is still more work to do. It is important that we strive for consensus. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench recognise where they are failing and where they need to do more. We need to give them credit for what they have done already.
	So, in a spirit of constructive criticism, and knowing how interested the Government are in standard assessment tests, I have decided to mark my autism scorecard against their performance. I am pretty sure that there will be consensus among members of the all-party group on the provision that I describe, although there may be differences of opinion on how well the Government are doing.
	The first thing that I would require of the Government is to improve planning for autistic people and special educational needs. The basis of planning is of course good data—knowing how many people for whom services are to be provided. The report published last week by the National Autistic Society said that one in 86 people has been identified by teachers as somewhere on the autistic spectrum. I point out for accuracy—this has not been mentioned in the debate so far—that the society also acknowledged that only one in 152 people has been formally diagnosed and that its own estimate remains at one in 110, and that the Medical Research Council's estimate of the number of autistic people under the age of eight is one in 166.
	What can we deduce from those data? We should first acknowledge that we should not get too hung up on data. The level of variation shows how uncertain we are of our figures. One of the things that I first did when I became interested in autism was to ask in a parliamentary question how many people have autism. The Government answered that they did not know. When I challenged a Minister on that later that day and said that it was terrible, I was told that things were worse than I had feared, as the Government did not know that they did not know until I had asked the question. The Government should be given credit for acknowledging the fact that they did not know, and for trying to work out how many people have autism spectrum disorders. Having said that, we still do not have accurate figures.
	The report of the all-party group, "The Rising Challenge", identified that 87 per cent. of local education authorities believe that the number of such people is increasing—whether that is through better diagnosis or whether it is a real increase is debatable. So, we should acknowledge that we need to plan for greater provision. I give the Government five out of 10 for recognising that they need better data, but only one out of 10 on top of that for progress so far. That totals six out of 10 for data collection and planning.
	Secondly, we need to recognise the variability of needs. Autism spectrum disorders range from people who are high-functioning, who can probably do well with the right help in a mainstream school, to those who have very serious disorders, who could not possibly survive in a mainstream school. There are many special schools and many specialist support units in mainstream schools, so we have the range of provision, but not sufficient quantity of it.
	I shall cite an example from Kent, although I do not do so because Kent is any worse than anywhere else. There are 32 specialist unit places for autistic children in mainstream secondary schools in Kent—two units of 16 places—and we have 12,000 autistic people in the county. I am not by any means saying that they all have the same needs and that it would be appropriate to send them all to such units, but those figures show the imbalance between provision and need. So, on the range of schools and support provided, and efforts to boost numbers, we can give the Government seven out of 10.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) mentioned, we need to assess children at an early age, as that helps us to gather data and provide individuals with intensive support. The Government have recognised the need to identify autistic people at an early age, for which we can give them 10 out of 10, as they are the first Government to do so. The Department of Health has supported a national initiative on autism screening and assessment, and a working party is trying to establish best practice in identifying autism. We can therefore give the Government five out of 10 for supporting that initiative, and they will gain the remaining five marks if and when they roll it out across the country.
	We need an autism-aware teacher in every school. I have told the House before of a case often cited by the National Autistic Society. A little girl was disruptive in class during literacy hour, when she had to sit in a circle with her schoolmates. An autism-aware teacher realised that she was disruptive because she was not sitting in the same place every time. A coloured carpet tile was provided, and the little girl knows that that is where she sits during literacy hour. The problem was solved with a nice, cheap solution because there was an autism-aware teacher in that school. The Government have provided £82 million for improved teacher training, which is an excellent step forward, but is not enough; we give them five out of 10.
	Earlier, I spoke about the primacy of parental concerns in legislation. We ought to acknowledge that and give the Government 10 out of 10 for recognising it.
	Intensive therapy was mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. It is important that we recognise the need to provide such therapy, but there is a lot of dispute about whether that should be done through education or health provision. Many parents have to fight, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, to get intensive therapy. In my early days as an MP, I championed the cause of a family who wanted the Lovaas technique for their child; we could not convince the local education authority, and the family had to provide it at their own expense. The child has prospered and will soon be back in a mainstream school at the cost, however, of the parents becoming bankrupt and the break-up of their marriage. Not providing that need when required involves an emotional cost, so the Government score three out of 10 for that.

Roger Gale: I shall try to raise something on which we probably agree. Much has been said tonight about schools. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when parents get their children into a special needs school or a mainstream school, it is tremendously sad that provision is for term time only? During the holidays, provision is cut; the children go back about four paces and have to start at that point the next term.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is right; he and I agree on that important aspect of provision. However, we must acknowledge that extending provision would add to costs. I am also championing the case of a child who does not have an autistic spectrum disorder but needs special school provision; the provision identified as meeting his needs covers 52 weeks a year and will cost £170,000 a year. The local education authority told me that that would pay for four special teachers, so a significant judgment and a difficult decision have to be made. I therefore award the Government three out of 10 for the provision of intensive therapy.
	Finally, the Minister for School Standards did not mention the national service framework for children, which is being championed largely by the Department of Health, but has close ties with the Department for Education and Skills. If it provides a one-stop shop from the point where a child is identified as having special needs to the fulfilment of those needs in education and health, and given that the Government have talked about using autism as an exemplar, we can give them nine out of 10 because the initiative will bring about the most dramatic improvement to the lives of autistic children in a generation. We will give them 10 out of 10 when the final framework is in place and we can make sure it is as good as promised.
	That is a total score of 55 out of 80, or 68 per cent. We can give the Government a B and the comment "Room for improvement", as my school reports always used to say. I was always quite pleased to take a mark of 68 per cent. home to my dad. At least I knew that I was not in trouble at home. In the spirit of an Opposition day debate, I can say that that is certainly better than the C-minus of the Conservatives prior to 1997. The Government get a B, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning will acknowledge that although progress has been made, a heck of a lot of progress remains to be made.

Charles Hendry: I shall focus on a particular aspect of the autism spectrum—the problems and education of children who are hyperactive. I raise the matter because of a number of distressing constituency cases which have come to my attention over the past year involving children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and its awful consequences for their families and schools.
	In two cases that come to mind, the children are young boys approaching their early teens. It is no surprise that they are young boys, as four out of five children who suffer from hyperactivity are male. The children in those two cases are violent and aggressive towards their parents and teachers, they threaten their siblings in the most frightening ways, they damage their own homes, and their schools cannot handle them. That has been a matter of awful concern to me. Hyperactive children fall between the stools within the local authority. Neither the education department nor the social services department is fully equipped to deal with such cases.
	I have looked around to try and find the most appropriate help. It was a joy to find a small organisation based near Chichester called the Hyperactive Children's Support Group, a small charity run by a remarkable lady named Sally Bunday, who set it up because of her own problems more than 30 years ago with her own son, who suffered in the same way. The group's main conclusion is that a link can be drawn between hyperactivity and diet—deficiencies of certain products or excesses of other products.
	That probably comes as no surprise to parents. We all know from our own experience or from that of other families about cases of a child being given a red or a blue Smartie or some other food containing colouring, and then exploding moments later. We can see a direct link in our families or our friends' families between those substances and the activities of such children. We need to focus on the awful knock-on effects when that happens while the child is at school.
	There are even children's vitamins which are sold to help the child to be active during the day, but which themselves contain colouring. Parents may think that they are sending their child off to school boosted with the energy that he or she requires for the day, but in fact they are sending into the classroom a little time bomb that can go off at any time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) spoke about the lack of statistics. Just last week I asked the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), how many children were diagnosed with ADHD. I was told that the information requested is not collected centrally, but the reply went on:
	"The prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder of all types is estimated at around 5 per cent. of school-aged children, approximately 345,000 six to 16-year-olds in England."—[Official Report, 16 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 872w.]
	That means that there are, on average, 500 hyperactive children in each of our constituencies—a frighteningly high level. The problem must be addressed urgently.
	There are different approaches, of course. Some suggest prescribing Ritalin, but there is an increasing tendency to look at more natural approaches, such as cutting out colourings and artificial additives. The UK still allows more colourings and additives than any other country in Europe. Perhaps the time has come for labelling to show clearly that the product contains elements which could adversely affect some children and make them subject to hyperactivity. Further work is needed in that direction. We must look at combating mineral deficiency and using products such as evening primrose oil.
	It has become clear from the debate that every case is different, so the solution to every case will be different. We must be creative in our approach. We need to work with schools to identify the problem and deal with it. There was a fascinating experiment at a small school in Cornwall, the Tywardeath primary school, where the headmaster, Gordon Walker, asked parents to stop their children eating 21 particular additives. All the parents were happy to take part. As a result, more than half of the 140 students behaved better and were able to concentrate more on their school work. The experiment produced nothing definitive, but evidence of how the problem can be addressed.
	The Hyperactive Children's Support Group has also carried out its own survey in which people have followed the Feingold diet, which is based on work pioneered by Dr. Feingold in the United States. The survey found that three quarters of children showed a good response to the diet and that about three quarters of the boys surveyed and more than half the girls had zinc levels that were below normal—a direct contributory factor to hyperactivity.
	Only last week, The Independent reported on a study carried out by Dr. Madelaine Portwood, a senior educational psychologist at Durham county council, who asked schools in her area to give supplements of fish and plant extracts so that the effect could be monitored. The report states:
	"Analysis at the halfway stage of the study shows remarkable advantages among children taking the supplements . . . One child's reading skills improved by the equivalent of four years after only 12 weeks of taking the supplements."
	The report goes on to quote Andrew Westerman, one school's headmaster, as saying:
	"It's like lights being switched on."
	That is the sort of evidence that we must take into account. Dr. Portwood said:
	"Why are there so many more children with developmental problems? The most significant change in the last 20 years has been the diet of children, and that is why we are exploring the use of food supplements."
	Those are a number of ways in which schools can help in investigating special educational needs. I hope that we can find a number of schools around the country that are prepared to consider conducting pilot projects that will allow us further to explore these issues, and that the Government will make funding available. They have a healthy eating programme for which they give additional funds to county councils. Perhaps they could use that programme to fund some pilot projects to enable us to find out where the science is correct. There is a strong divergence of views among scientists and we must make an assessment. Even if we asked for children to undergo a nutritional assessment so we could decide and identify deficiencies and find out whether there was a correlation in relation to children with behavioural problems, we would make a significant advance. Every parent knows that a link exists and we must address it more seriously as part of the work of the House.
	I should like briefly to mention one other matter that relates directly to autism. Last week, I visited a group in my constituency called Step-by-Step. The group has been set up by parents and grandparents of children who have autism. They want to establish a specialist school in Crowborough. The model on which they have chosen to base the school is the Treehouse school, to which the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) referred—one of three schools that are currently adopting an approach called applied behaviour analysis. When Nick Hornby, himself the father of an autistic son, addressed that issue in a recent article in The Observer, he asked:
	"How are we going to educate all these autistic kids, when there are currently 76,000 of them fighting for 3,000 specialist school places, and when we know from experts that it is only specialist education that can make any difference?"
	Of course, wonderful work is done in mainstream education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said, we must all pay tribute to the patience and perseverance of people who work in these very difficult cases, but different cases need different solutions. She was also correct to say that inclusion is not right in all cases. I also agreed with the Minister, who said that parents have a unique understanding of their children's circumstances. He told us that two thirds of cases were working satisfactorily, which means that one third are not. We were told by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) that 75 per cent. of families with autistic children are happy with the education that they are getting, but that means that 25 per cent. are not happy. In other words, between 20,000 and 25,000 families are not getting the support that they believe they need.
	I hope that the Government will find a way of assisting schools such as the Step-by-Step school that is planned for my constituency. The project is imaginative and creative, and tries to use a system that the families believe will work best for their children. I hope that the Minister will give us some encouraging words.

Phil Hope: I welcome the chance to contribute, however briefly, to this debate.
	The hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) made some interesting points about the possible causes of some special educational needs and offered one or two observations about activities that might deal with them. I have to say, however, that this Opposition day debate has been characterised by an absence of Conservative party policy on what we should be doing to meet the needs of children with special educational needs.
	I want to give a local example of a strategy—not just a one-off contribution that is a particularly good way of responding, but a complete strategy that is in accordance with the Government's policy and demonstrates how to deliver special education in a whole area. I am talking about the county of Northamptonshire, where the Labour county council has a reputation for having a very high-quality special educational needs policy. Indeed, a recent Ofsted report described the local education authority's strategy on special educational needs as excellent and as reflecting the national agenda, with a key commitment to the principle of inclusion. Interestingly, Opposition Members talked about watchwords of choice and diversity, but failed to use the word "inclusion" as a key principle in approaching the question of developing education for children with special educational needs.
	The local education authority is in the top quartile of performance indicators for carrying out assessments within 18 weeks, at some 90 per cent. The parent partnership scheme that it funds is well developed and provides valuable support to parents through the education system. The Ofsted report said that the fact that parents were so well assisted by that system contributed to a reduction in the number of appeals having to reach tribunal stage.
	I have practical experience of the situation in Northamptonshire. Studfall junior school in my constituency has achieved the full integration of children with special educational needs. To pick up a point made by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), that includes children with hearing impairments. I witnessed fantastic educational opportunities during a Christmas event, when the whole school—a group of deaf children with hearing children—sang "Silent Night" using sign language. That was astonishing, because the hearing children were doing the signing. Both deaf and hearing children benefit from that kind of inclusiveness in our education system. To include is to provide opportunities for all our children, not just those with special educational needs.
	Although Northamptonshire has been recommended by Ofsted as having an excellent system, it wants to go further and is now considering the Government's agenda to decide how better to go forward. It has drawn up a series of principles that will underpin a major review of its provision. Those principles comprise a model that we might wish to apply elsewhere. They hold that the needs of pupils must be paramount; that there must be early identification and intervention for all pupils with special educational needs; and vitally and interestingly, that every pupil with a statement, wherever they are placed, must be put on the register of a local mainstream school. So even a pupil with a statement who attends a special school will be registered with a mainstream school—in effect, they are dual registered. That is a practical step towards linking together the needs of children in the mainstream and special school systems to ensure that those needs are met.
	In Northamptonshire, the council is going to create a continuum of special education provision. To support an inclusive educational system, it will create a network of specialist centres with an agreed specification of expertise. Those centres will be directly linked to mainstream local schools so that the geographical distance is minimised to allow for ease of movement of pupils and teachers between them and mainstream schools. New partnerships of training, management, professional advice and expertise will be established, so that instead of isolated silos that children cannot move between, there will be an integrated network of specialist centres, mainstream schools and designated special provision—that is, a mainstream school with a designated special unit on site—that provides a real, multi-agency network of support within the school system. That will mean that young people can move freely and are not pigeonholed, boxed up and left uninspired in a place that cannot take them forward.
	Of course, other children in mainstream schools will also have opportunities—the traffic is not one way. The provision in specialist centres is available to mainstream school children if they need it, and special needs children can use the mainstream school. Outside that, there will be a proper system of quality monitoring and control to ensure that the facilities meet the needs of all children.
	I mentioned those principles because they will inform a radical review of provision in Northamptonshire. It will not be easy. Parents and providers will have fears and anxieties about what it means in practice. The principles that underpin the review and the reorganisation will create confidence that diversity will exist and be rooted in inclusiveness. That is the crucial new direction in which the Government are leading us.
	I want to mention two examples of excellent practice that underpin the changes. It is vital that parents should be at the centre of the debate. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and others have emphasised that. In 1994, we created Parents in Partnership in Northamptonshire. This afternoon, I spoke to the founder member of the organisation, which is now called SNIP—Special Needs in Partnership. It is a funded organisation that is run by volunteers and covers all children up to the age of 19. When a parent contacts it and says, "I'm not sure whether there's something wrong with my child; something is not quite right," a response is received in 24 hours. In days, someone from the organisation visits the family to talk through their problems, needs and worries.
	The family may already have a child with special educational needs, or may be trying to get a child statemented. The parent may simply be worried. The service means that parents can have an advocate or mentor beside them—someone who understands the system and can draw on other resources, such as the voluntary organisations and specialist groups that were mentioned earlier—to be with the family. It is a fantastic service which is core funded by the county council. I am talking not about funny money but about real, sustainable money. There are paid and volunteer staff. This is a model of good practice that integrates the community, the voluntary sector and the local authority in providing parents with the support that they need.
	Support for very young children is vital. No hon. Member has mentioned the portage service. Children with special educational needs that are identified early are visited by a portage home visitor, and a family with very small babies benefits from a tightly prescribed method for helping their child. The parents are shown what to do and, over a fortnight, they undertake activities every day with the child and keep a record. The volunteer from the portage service visits them again, assesses what has happened and describes the next series of activities. Consequently, the parents do not wonder what to do or feel isolated and the child does not get worse through lack of support.
	The child is thus actively and practically supported by the parent, as the first educator, through the expertise and support of the service. The local education authority funds the service, but 50 volunteers provide it across the county. It is the largest service of its kind in the country, and many people could learn from it.
	Time is not on our side, but I hope that I have shown that we have a good track record in Northamptonshire of providing services. We have new principles on which to base a reorganisation of those excellent services so as to be in tune with the Government's core aims of partnership with parents and inclusiveness for all children in our communities.

Mark Hoban: My remarks will, of necessity, be brief. I pay tribute to some of the mainstream schools in my constituency that have pursued inclusion successfully. There is a hearing impairment unit at Wallisdean junior school attached to the mainstream school. Hearing impaired children there can thus receive additional support to help them integrate more fully into the mainstream school. Many physical changes are being made to Park Gate school to enable children with wheelchairs to have access to the mainstream curriculum.
	We should pay tribute to the staff, pupils and heads of mainstream schools for their efforts to integrate children with special educational needs into their schools. They have done a terrific job, and everybody in the schools has benefited enormously from their actions.
	As well as the recurrent theme of encouraging inclusion in schools in my constituency, another theme has run through meetings and conversations with head teachers. That is the issue of whether children with special educational needs should always be included in mainstream schools. I shall cite a couple of examples, because we need to stop and think about how far this agenda should go, and about what action we should take in consequence.
	One head teacher has cited the situation in which an included child can absorb more resources than are funded by the local authority. As a consequence of that child's needs not being met by the additional funding, the classroom assistant or the teacher has to devote disproportionate time to that child's education, to the detriment of the other children in the class. There is concern that the education of other children suffers when there are insufficient resources available, and that the education of the child with special educational needs is not being fully supported in the way that we believe it should be. As a consequence, that child will not get the full chances in life that we all think he is entitled to.
	The other example that I have come across in my constituency is one in which the support given to a child, and that child's ability to access the mainstream curriculum, is so limited that, although he is being educated in a classroom alongside his peers, the isolation is such that it would be unfair to say that he was being included. It would be more accurate to say that he was being co-located with his peers. The interests of that child are not being properly considered if he is simply being educated alongside a class, rather than as part of it.
	The long-term consequences of pushing a short-term inclusion agenda will cause difficulties for children in that situation, because they need more care and educational support—probably in the form of the more supportive surroundings of a special school—than they are getting by being part of a mainstream school. We need to ensure, in providing the special education that children need, that we think carefully about their needs, in terms of the LEA, the parents and those who provide support and guidance to parents.
	I am conscious that we are reaching the time when we shall start to get letters from constituents about statements and the needs that are specified in them, and about the support and help that children need. We should look to LEAs and voluntary groups to work more closely with parents to ensure that the statement of need produced as part of this process is really supportive of the long-term needs of the child, and not driven simply by the need either to cut costs or to pursue an inclusion agenda.
	Last year, in my first year as a Member of Parliament, I came across many issues involving the inclusion of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools. The fact that there are fewer special schools means that, when such a school is recommended to parents, transport costs can become an issue for the county council, which has to decide how to fund them and determine what impact that will have on other children's education.
	Other methods of special education, which LEAs do not fund, exist outside the school structure. In my constituency, the Rainbow Centre provides conductive education for children with cerebral palsy from across the south-east of England. The centre is not funded by the Government, and I ask the Minister to look carefully at that issue. At present, the centre's valuable work is funded entirely by the tremendous efforts of volunteers, many of whom have put much effort into providing this form of education. I ask the Government to consider funding educational methods that are used outside the mainstream education system funded by the LEAs. I also hope that the inclusion agenda will not be pushed to such an extent that it works against the interests of the very children whom we hope to protect and support in the years ahead.

Alistair Burt: This has been an interesting debate, well conducted on both sides. As always, it has been enriched by the personal knowledge of colleagues who take a particular interest in this matter in their constituencies. It is appropriate to pay tribute to the parents of the children we have been speaking about, to the many organisations and charities that work with them, and to those who work very hard in local education authorities, including my own in Bedfordshire, through their own schools and through Shaftesbury schools in my constituency such as Hinwick Hall. I also pay tribute to the children themselves, who achieve so much. It was right to pay tribute to some of the achievements of those children in the debate. I shall come back to that in a moment.
	The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) reminded us, quite properly, of where we had come from over the years. The issue of special needs is seen quite differently from how it was seen a generation ago. From my experience as Minister for Disabled People, I have a sense of a continually improving ratchet in relation to disability. Things steadily improve—we are not always where we want to be, but it is always better than how it was. Long may that continue.
	The hon. Gentleman also spoke movingly about one of the schools in his constituency—now closed, sadly—which treated the most difficult of pupils. One can well understand the difficulties in that sort of school and how much good it did the pupils whom it was trying to support.
	We had a rare sighting of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). He spent the first few minutes of his speech talking about Conservatives—something is repressed there, I suspect. He spoke knowledgeably about them, and then spoke properly about autism and his constituency. He spoke well, and his remaining remarks were in tune with the rest of the debate.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), in a commanding, authoritative and brief speech, reminded us why she was such an exceptionally good Secretary of State for Education. She discussed the importance of flexibility in relation to special needs and how the system had to accommodate individuals, despite a general sense of inclusion that we all share. She made the point about entry into the system in a variety of different ways and at different times and the need to be properly flexible in providing that system. She also mentioned further education, which I will come to in a moment.
	The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), as chairman of the all-party group on autism, referred to autism week. He gave the Government a score of 68 per cent. and said how pleased his dad would have been if he had gone home with that mark. I do not necessarily concur with the mark of 68 per cent., but I agree that taking home 68 per cent. to one's dad was pretty good. I say that tonight because it is my dad's birthday, and I hope that he gives me 68 per cent. for this speech. [Interruption.] We do not often get this sort of chance, so I am not going to miss it. It is a special birthday for my dad.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) made a significant speech about the impact of additives and diet on the diagnosis of those with behavioural problems. He produced a number of interesting points of evidence. There is much further work to be done in relation to that. Our diagnosis of special needs is improving, and the relationship between diet and special needs is of interest to a number of Members, as my hon. Friend reminded the House.
	The hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) spoke about the portage service. I pay tribute to that; I had one in my previous constituency, and know how important it was for early diagnosis and early support. He also spoke movingly about children signing. As a Minister who signed at the special Christmas service for the Royal School for the Deaf in St. Margarets, I understand how overwhelmingly significant that is and the way it makes one feel in relation to those who have hearing disabilities. When children sign while they are singing, it is really very special. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) paid tribute to local schools in his constituency, and mentioned conductive education at the Rainbow Centre. In doing so, he made a proper and valid contribution to the debate.
	I want to pick up on what my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said about further education. We have spent most of our time today talking about special needs in schools, but for two reasons it is terribly important to discuss how they are dealt with in further and higher education. First, we should not forget that knowing that they can leave school and enter further and higher education provides an extraordinary role model for those with disabilities. Secondly, we must pay genuine tribute to those who have worked so hard in further and higher education to enable special needs provision to come on in leaps and bounds in the past decade or so.
	Further education colleges are proud of their provision. They already cope with a wide variety of students, as the Minister knows full well. The Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education has produced a toolkit that includes a range of measures to help colleges with the practicalities of providing beneficial places for those with special learning needs. This afternoon, I spoke to Sue Spencer and others at Walsall college, which does particularly well with the deaf and the deaf-blind. I mention this example to give hon. Members a sense of the extent of further education provision for those with disabilities. Walsall college has some 80 students. Four are deaf-blind, and their ages range from 16 to 87. The 87-year-old man, who is deaf-blind, is on a computer course and has already finished courses in mathematics and English. A full range of courses are studied by those with special learning needs. Some go on to university, some to work, and others to different courses.
	The keys to success include highly qualified teachers who continually top up their skills, good support systems—including educational interpreters who can offer assistance—along with other elements that the Minister might consider at some stage. As she knows, there is an acute national shortage of signers. The implication of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is that the need for signers, particularly in education, has increased markedly. There is a chronic need to examine that issue, and to consider the way in which British sign language is handled for examination purposes.
	What is happening in higher education is remarkable, and universities are doing ever more. About 7 per cent. of students at Leeds university, which I contacted this afternoon, have some form of special need or disability—a figure that is rather higher than the national average. In 1991, about 1 per cent. of all students had some form of disability, but the national average is now some 5 per cent., a figure which reflects society at large. That shows how far we have come in a decade. Leeds university has many students with dyslexia; indeed, the numbers have increased by 25 per cent. in a year. It also has students with cerebral palsy, and with speech and movement difficulties, who are following full higher education courses. It also has quadriplegics, tetraplegics, and sufferers of muscular dystrophy and trauma injuries.
	The greatest difficulties relate to mental health. Given the nature of the illness, it is rather harder for those with mental health problems to participate in higher education, given the concentration required. Moreover, when one examines the destinations of such students, it is noticeable that they are also the most difficult to place. In considering what measures might be adopted, the Minister should note that insufficient research has been undertaken into the destinations of students with learning difficulties. It is difficult to place them with smaller employers, who often imagine that the reality is rather harder to deal with than it actually is. That leads to some frustration, but all in all good things are being done.
	Although there is considerable agreement among hon. Members on this issue, several of the points raised by my hon. Friends and in our motion illustrate that certain difficulties exist. The differences between us, and between the motions before us, are sufficient to warrant our dividing the House this evening.
	We want greater joined-up support for the various services that look after people with autism. Many hon. Members spoke about those problems. Whereas there is general support for the principle of inclusion, there is also great support for special schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) mentioned the special schools in his area that are being closed. Parents there are not being provided with a choice. The Government cannot truly be content to sit on the sidelines and not comment on that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) also spoke about the problems of ending special provision in Margate.
	We need greater research. There is concern about the overlap of support between social services and education. Social services have immense funding problems. The vast majority of directors of social services plead that they are in difficulties because they have to provide more and more for the elderly. As a result, money has been removed from those who need it in other services, which has affected those with special needs in particular. Despite the score card mentioned by the hon. Member for South Thanet, our score card would reveal rather more for the Government to do. Although the Minister may address our concerns, I suspect that we may still want to divide the House.

Margaret Hodge: I am grateful to Conservative Members for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that we do not often focus our discussions in the Chamber on those pupils whose needs may be greatest because they have special needs.
	Many powerful speeches were made, reflecting a genuine commitment to the large number of complex issues and challenges that we face in trying to give the best possible start in life to children with special educational needs. I pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), to all those involved. One of the most fulfilling periods in my life was when I worked with people in the disability and special educational needs world as we worked on legislation.
	The hon. Gentleman's contribution was in stark contrast to the opening remarks by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. She may have been surprised at our reaction. When she describes children with special educational needs and disabilities as sad, disadvantaged, little tragic cases—

Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister give way?

Margaret Hodge: No.
	When the hon. Lady says those things and talks about the liability that such children are imposing on LEAs because of inclusion, she displays a patronising attitude and devalues the worth of the individual children whose interest she is claiming to promote.

Eleanor Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Hodge: No, I will not. The hon. Lady talked for far too long tonight.

Eleanor Laing: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Margaret Hodge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I am not behaving disgracefully.

Eleanor Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Lady is not raising a point of order because the Minister is not giving way. That is not really a point of order, is it?

Eleanor Laing: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. Lady is impugning me for something that I have not said. It cannot possibly be in order for her to do so.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for debate. One day the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to rebut the case that the Minister is making.

Margaret Hodge: She will also have the opportunity to look at the Hansard record.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest and many other hon. Members mentioned autism. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) gave us a score of 68 per cent. I think that five years into a Labour Government, that is good progress. I also accept, however, that there is much left to do. I agree about the need to have better information. In July 2001, we carried out a pilot study, involving 200 schools, to assess the feasibility of collecting data on the broad range of special educational needs. We are considering whether we should introduce a requirement for all schools and LEAs to provide that information from 2004. It is likely to include data on autism. My hon. Friend mentioned other important matters, and we will return to those.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said that further education is important. FE probably has the best record in responding to inclusive education for young people and older people with special educational needs and disabilities. I take on board the issues that he raised about British sign language. One reason why students are doing so much better in an inclusive environment in higher education is that we introduced the non-means tested disabled students allowance. We heard a thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) raised the issue of VAT, which I raise constantly with my colleagues in the Treasury, and I shall do so again following tonight's debate.
	The hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) raised some interesting issues about diet in relation to hyperactive children. Sharing that sort of information in the House can do nothing but add to our knowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) and the hon. Member for Newbury both talked about the importance of inclusion—supporting not just children with special educational needs but contributing to the experience of all children in the mainstream environment. I was particularly interested to hear about what is happening in Northamptonshire, where specialist centres are being linked to mainstream schools.
	The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) talked about diversity and choice and trying to provide flexibility between special schools and mainstream schools. I agree with her on that. I would fail in my public duty, however, were I not to remind the House of the Conservative party's record in office in relation to special schools. In the last four years of the Tory Government, 83 special schools were closed. That is 50 per cent. more than were closed in the first four years of this Government. We are working with the special schools to ensure a positive future for them. Far from leaving them to the insecurity of the market, as the Tories did, we want to give them the security that comes from sensible planning and strong partnership.
	That is why my noble Friend Baroness Ashton has set up a working group to consider the future role of special schools in the wider context of our strategy on inclusion. That group will focus on practical mechanisms that would help special schools to work more effectively. Subjects that it will consider will include: how best to secure regional provision to meet the requirements of those with low-incidence special educational needs; systems, which could include funding, that would enable special schools to deliver outreach support more effectively; how best to use the inspection team to celebrate the achievements of special schools; and provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. I hope that the hon. Member for Epping Forest will accept that that sort of work, leading to a report in the autumn, will ensure that we have proper inter-linking between special schools and the mainstream.
	We have considerable achievements under our belt, although we have a long way to go. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is on the statute book, and we have introduced the new SEN code of practice, which has been in force since January. All LEAs now have parent partnership services. We have placed a duty on LEAs to provide informal arrangements to prevent and resolve disagreements before they reach the tribunal stage. We have supported massive increases in funding in education in general and to respond specifically to the requirements of children with special educational needs. The standards fund is now five times larger than when we came into office, and we have introduced the £220 million access initiative into schools. Early years intervention, with special co-ordinators in each setting, is also an attempt to make progress.
	I recognise, as have other hon. Members tonight, that we must continue to do more. There will continue to be major challenges in raising the quality and improving the outcomes for children with special educational needs. It is still a fact that a child with a special educational needs statement is seven times more likely to be excluded than a child without a statement. We need to tackle that. It is also still a fact that we need to get better at identifying a child's needs earlier and responding more quickly to them. That is why our guidance on working with children under the age of two will be so important. We hope to issue that guidance shortly. We need to get better at working across the disciplines—between health, social services and education. The special educational needs partnerships are a start in that work.
	We need to build a stronger, professional work force to cater for the needs that we identify. Again, progress is being made, with more speech and language therapists, for example, but we want to ensure—

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 357.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 167.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the Government's commitment to helping all pupils release their potential; supports the development of an education service that provides equality of opportunity and raises achievement of all children, including those with special educational needs; welcomes the Government's recognition of the important role of special schools and the forthcoming work to review and develop that role; further welcomes the recent report by the National Autistic Society and recognises the importance of early intervention to help children with autism; applauds the Government's strong record on supporting pupils with special educational needs, notably through providing a clear vision for their education and welfare in its 1998 Green Paper "Excellence for all children" and implementing an ambitious programme of action resulting in this House's approval of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, despite strong opposition from the other side of the House; commends the introduction of the new SEN Code of Practice and the principles of inclusion and partnership that lie behind it; further notes the development of national standards for specialist teachers and a range of training programmes and materials to support them; acknowledges the substantial increases in funding through both SSA and Standards Fund to support these and other initiatives; further notes that the Government will continue to ensure that the rights of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities are protected; and looks forward to the forthcoming Code of Practice to reinforce the rights of pupils with disabilities.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 2nd May, be approved.
	That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 2nd May, be approved.

Flags

That the draft Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
	That the TSE (England) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 843), dated 27th March, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Ainger.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Trowbridge Courthouse

Andrew Murrison: I am privileged to present a petition against the closure of Trowbridge courthouse. The petition bears the signatures of 2,000 people from west Wiltshire.
	The petition states:
	The humble petition of the constituency of West Wiltshire sheweth
	That justice must be equally accessible to all and that it is best dispensed in a local context; that to close Trowbridge Courthouse would impose unacceptable burdens on court users, particularly those from deprived and rural areas; and that the decision by Wiltshire Magistrates' Court Committee to close Trowbridge Courthouse is unacceptable.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall take all necessary steps to ensure that Trowbridge Courthouse remains open.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

MOBILE TELEPHONE MASTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce an Adjournment debate on the subject of mobile phone masts, which I know is of concern to many Members. I recall that we have had several Adjournment debates on the subject, secured by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) among others, and that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) introduced a ten-minute Bill on the matter.
	There is growing concern on the issue. The Trade and Industry Committee report of March 2001 is probably the best overall summary of the politics, the economics and the technology involved, but the issue is not going away. I do not want simply to reiterate all the old arguments. Many of the scientific data are well summarised in the Stewart report, which remains the standard work on the subject. Much of the policy debate revolves around the Government's planning guidelines. I shall try to take the issues a little further.
	I am prompted—I guess that in such Adjournment debates, most of us are—by local concerns. There are currently three big controversies in my constituency over mobile phone masts. None has been generated by politicians; they are very much grass-roots protests. I shall describe them briefly to give a flavour of what many of us are encountering in our constituencies.
	One controversy concerns residential development at the edge of my constituency in Hampton. On a field immediately adjacent to a group of houses, Orange and BT Cellnet are trying to erect a mobile phone mast. The land happens to lie in the borough of Hounslow, which is adjacent to my borough, and the residents, with my support, have protested because of the planning problems associated with the application—the visual intrusion as well as anxieties about health.
	Hounslow council turned down the application. Within days the mobile phone companies lodged appeals, and there is a fatalistic worry among the residents that the deep pockets of the telecom companies will prevail, despite the fact that there is ample room for manoeuvre: there is a large field, and the residents are perfectly happy for the masts to be sited on its far side. None the less, the pressures from the companies are inexorable.
	In another case, Orange is trying to put up a mobile phone mast on a busy road where residents are already concerned about environmental impacts. Again, the matter is going before the council; it already has a recommendation for rejection, I believe, and we expect the case to go to appeal.
	Most serious of all, and timely in view of today's debate, is the mobile phone mast erected immediately adjacent to St. Edmund's school in Whitton; I handed in a petition against that with 1,000 signatures this morning. The maximum intensity of the beam was directed at the school playing field, and staff, parents and nearby residents are incensed. Moreover, they have now discovered that Orange, the company promoting the mast, assumed that planning permission would be automatically granted, so did not even begin to apply for planning permission before it started to erect the mast.
	Mobile phone companies have a 10-point code of conduct, but in my experience it is rarely applied or communicated to the contractors who carry out the work on their behalf. By contrast, most of the residents whom I encounter view the problem in a broad context, so I do not want to present it in a Nimby spirit; they fully accept that decisions have to be made on the basis of sound science and that there is a need for a national network. I want to focus on the way in which the planning system accommodates highly sensitive applications that arouse strong feelings, because it is not clear that it can do that at the moment.
	I do not want to reinvent the wheel, but I shall start with the science. The Stewart report has been discussed endlessly, and it represents the current conventional wisdom. It is fair to say that its conclusions are subtle, complex and rather confusing for many ordinary people. I have picked out some key conclusions; taken together, they tell an ambiguous story.
	The companies always quote the basic conclusion of the expert group in the report:
	"We conclude that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. However, there can be indirect effects on their well being in some cases".
	Later, the report states:
	"There is now scientific evidence however which suggests that there may be biological . . . effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines . . . We conclude that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach".
	The subtlety of that conclusion is surprising; it would have been easy for Professor Stewart and his committee to say, "Let's be brutally rational; there isn't a risk, so let's just proceed. People are misguided and are worried about myths, not a serious problem." However, Professor Stewart did not say that; he hedged his bets. I read in the evidence that he presented subsequently to the relevant Select Committee that he was scarred by the experience of the BSE affair. He was aware of the risks that science might reveal in future, so in his results he presented the need for a precautionary approach. Residents are picking up on that and are concerned about health effects, although there is no hard science to justify their reservations at present.
	I should like to pose two questions to the Minister. If she answers them, that will help me to deal with my constituents' worries. How are the Government responding to and monitoring the scientific data as they come in? I have read some of the literature on the vast website on masts. Some interesting experiments are taking place. Work done in Switzerland has alarmed the Swiss and led them to introduce extremely restrictive conditions for mobile phone masts. Work has been done in Germany on the impact on livestock. I do not know whether those studies are good or bad, or whether they have been subject to tough peer review, but clearly the science is advancing. I would be interested to know how the Government intend to evaluate such results as they emerge, and at what point the conclusions of the Stewart report might have to be modified.
	A further related question is whether the Government are monitoring and analysing the effects of the changes in technology. One of the interesting smaller points in the Select Committee report was the reference to the fact that in Finland, Nokia is developing a new type of technology for wireless telephony which dispenses with masts entirely. It is miniature technology, and it is up and running.
	This month I noticed in Scientific American, which my scientific son insists that I read, a reference to something called UWB technology—a wholly new approach to short-range transmission, which could change altogether the way in which the wireless system operates. It would be useful to have some mechanism for understanding the extent to which that technology changes the assumptions on which current policy is based.
	I shall now proceed to the issue of planning guidance, for which the Minister is directly responsible, and the extent to which it has helped or hindered residents who are concerned about the problem. I appreciate that there is some difficulty with the way in which planning guidance has emerged. A group of scientists under Professor Stewart said that the planning conditions needed to be changed, but as we know, planners are not qualified to judge science. That dilemma presents a fundamental difficulty.
	When the Stewart report was published, the Government undertook
	"to introduce a requirement for full planning permission for all new masts".
	The Minister will probably acknowledge that there has been a partial movement in that direction. The 15 ft masts are now subject to longer periods of consultation, but the prior approval procedures still apply. They are not subject to full planning clearance procedure. There is a narrow requirement, which is welcome, that schools should be consulted, but there is not an obligation to meet the requests of schools if they choose to make them. That is the problem of my residents in Whitton. The school has been consulted and has expressed its unhappiness, but there is no way in which the mobile phone company can be forced to meet its concerns.

Mark Oaten: Given the precautionary recommendations about schools, would it not be sensible for the Government to rule out applications that impact on school sites?

Vincent Cable: Yes, I agree. That was one of the conclusions towards which I was working, and I believe that it is the practice in countries such as the United States, which in many respects are much more permissive in their approach to technology, and much more cavalier about the environment, than we are. None the less, the US has a tough regime on schools, which I am sure is right.
	The planning guidance is producing, perhaps unintentionally, much confusion among planning officials, councillors and local residents. They are frustrated because they understand that a precautionary principle applies and that there are health concerns, as yet unsubstantiated, but they cannot express those effectively through the planning process.

John Pugh: Does my hon. Friend accept that most local authorities wish to observe the precautionary principle? Because they do not think that Government rules allow them to do that in a way that satisfies residents, they often adopt strange devices such as moratoriums on council land. In the constituency that I represent, it is impossible to put a mast on the end of a pier because of current council policy. All that is a result of the fact that councils wish to implement a precautionary approach, but do not feel that planning law allows them to do that properly.

Vincent Cable: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The process works out in all sorts of ways. Residents who are concerned about health often argue their case in planning committees on the grounds of visual amenity, as that is what the planning system allows them to do. That is not a sensible way of judging the issue, and the process needs to be changed. I am not expressing only a personal view or the views of my colleagues, but those of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, an all-party group that has expressed itself trenchantly. It said:
	"Unless it is clear that the planning system has a robust way of dealing with fears expressed by people, the results of the changes will be yet more frustration."
	I should like to crystallise the position by asking the Minister a couple of questions. Can she help to clarify whether health anxieties are legitimate grounds for consideration in planning matters? There is a great deal of uncertainty about that. Many councils and council officials believe, on the basis of Government circulars, that they are not allowed to take health considerations into account and that if they do so, they will be taken to appeal by a mobile phone company and lose the case because they are operating outside the rules.
	The position is ambiguous. When the planning guidance was circulated, we saw a paragraph stating that health considerations were a material planning consideration, so it is clear that different factors are operating. I know that the Minister's inspectors have looked into some important cases, including those of Newport in 1998, Tandridge in 2000, and Thurrock, Stanmore and others, in which councils have turned down masts because of public anxiety about health and have won the appeal. I want to be as clear as possible about the exact status of a planning application that is rejected by a council because of residents' anxieties about health effects.
	The other final consideration that I want to raise relates to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) about schools, which are a special case. There is a particular anxiety about schools, and in his report Sir William Stewart made it clear why that is the case. Children's physical development makes them more vulnerable to the biological effects of waves—if, indeed, those waves are damaging.
	In particular, Sir William Stewart urged the introduction of a more stringent set of rules than the Government have evolved for schools. I think that he specifically argued that schools' agreement should be obtained to the arrangements being made, and that that was especially important when beams were aimed directly at a school. Whether or not that is the case, will the Minister explain the position of local communities that feel strongly about the vulnerability of schools, but cannot argue effectively in the planning process that an application be turned down, even when there is strong resistance?
	In conclusion and in drawing together the threads, it might be useful to summarise the consensus that exists, as this is not a party matter. The Local Government Association, which represents councils across the political spectrum, considered planning for masts recently and made this comment on the application of the precautionary principle:
	"the government does not seem to have implemented the recommendation wholeheartedly and therefore the aim of the recommendation has been compromised."
	That is a rather harsh judgment—indeed, it may be harsher than it should be—but the association expresses the frustrations of councils throughout the land.
	I should like to suggest a way forward, as I hope that we have not heard the last word from the Government on planning guidance. They could indicate, in revised planning guidance, letters to councils or statements in Parliament, that they wanted to find a mechanism enabling residents and local councils who are very concerned about a sensitive planning application to turn it down without running into the difficulties that they currently appear to experience in connection with planning inquiries. Such a mechanism would not relate to narrow planning considerations, but would ensure that broader grounds of public anxiety are accepted as a legitimate reason for turning down an application. That would possibly also allow councils to grant planning permission that is time limited because of anxieties that the science will change.
	The compensation for a concession to make it easier to reject some planning applications connected with mobile phone telephony could be to require local authorities to have a plan that makes it easier to roll out the mast programme throughout the country. In other words, they would buy into the roll-out across the borough, but allow specific applications to be tackled more robustly than is possible under current planning procedures. That is a balanced approach that would allow an element of give and take and tackle many of our constituents' anxieties.

Sally Keeble: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate on an important subject, which hon. Members and members of the public raise frequently. It is helpful to have a chance to clarify some issues. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific points, which covered health considerations in the planning process, research, the role of planning and roll-out of a plan. There is little time, and if I cannot deal with all the points now, I shall do so in correspondence, if that is helpful.
	Clarity is needed, and we have devised a careful presentation that is based on the well-known anxieties that have been raised. I appreciate the opportunity simply to rehearse the arguments. The Government have three key responsibilities for mobile phone masts. Our main responsibility is the protection of public health. Secondly, we must facilitate the roll-out of new and existing networks. Thirdly, we must protect the environment. The third responsibility relates especially to planning.
	The Government want to ensure that the public are able to enjoy the benefits that flow from a greater choice of service providers and a broader range of services. According to industry figures, more than two thirds of the total population of the UK use a mobile phone—around 45 million people. The growth in the mobile communications sector in the past 15 years has been remarkable and is set to continue. That creates pressure because of the demand for mobile phone services.
	Mobile phones will not work without the supporting infrastructure—that is, the masts. Their siting causes the genuine problems on which I want to focus my comments. The issues tend to be the same, whether taken on a case-by-case or a roll-out basis. Whenever it is suggested that local authorities have a planning strategy for an issue that is not popular locally, the roll-out always becomes excessively difficult. If hon. Members consider waste incinerators, they will understand what I mean.
	Hon. Members know about the Stewart report on mobile phones and health. On mobile phone base stations, the Stewart group concluded that the balance of evidence suggests no general risk to the health of people living near base stations because exposure is expected to be small fractions of the guidelines. However, there can be indirect adverse effects on well-being in some cases. I believe that the report specifically identified anxieties that can be caused when people are aware of masts in their areas. That explains the indirect effect on health. Gaps in scientific knowledge led Stewart to recommend a precautionary approach, which comprises a series of specific measures. Several people believe that the precautionary approach means a ban, but it clearly does not; the report did not recommend a ban on constructing mobile phone masts or the establishment of exclusion zones between masts and existing developments.
	The Government accepted the recommended precautionary approach and are introducing a range of precautionary actions. Contrary to what people believe, almost every recommendation by the Stewart report, the responsibility for which covers different Departments, is being introduced. There is a slight variation on one planning recommendation, but only in procedure. The net effect on planning is almost the same. So, the idea that we are not complying with the precautionary approach is simply not borne out.
	The things that we have done include: ensuring that all base stations meet the international exposure guidelines; setting up a national database with details of base stations; implementing a new £7 million joint Government/industry research programme; publishing leaflets; and auditing mobile phone base stations and masts to assess emissions, focusing on schools. The results from the first 100 audits carried out last year showed emissions ranging from several hundred to many thousands of times lower than the public exposure guideline limits.
	The Stewart report suggested that lack of public consultation is a major grievance to the people who suffer loss of amenity when base stations are erected. It also suggested that many people feel excluded and disempowered by the current planning arrangements, and that the resulting frustration can have a negative effect on people's health and well-being. That is one of the indirect effects that I was talking about earlier.
	For those reasons, the group recommended that changes to the planning arrangements were necessary, and changes were, indeed, made. I shall not go through the details of them all now, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is probably already aware of them. I will set them out in writing if he would like me to, but I want to move on to some of the other issues that he has raised.
	One issue concerned the legislative arrangements that set out the procedure by which a planning application will be considered. Planning policy guidance note 8—known as PPG8—sets out the Government's policies on telecoms development. One of the important themes running through the guidance is the adoption of a partnership approach between the operator, the local planning authority and the local community. Careful consideration of the siting and design of a development should ensure that the right equipment is put in the right place in the right way.
	In this context, the Government welcome the 10 commitments that the operators have made to adhere to clear standards and procedures which will deliver significantly improved consultation with local communities. In particular, the operators have pledged to provide their annual roll-out plans to local planning authorities each autumn. The Government strongly encourage operators and local planning authorities to carry out annual discussions based on those plans and on other information.

Mark Oaten: The Minister referred to the voluntary code and the 10 commitments. Will she give a commitment to review that code, perhaps in a year's time, to see whether it is operating effectively?

Sally Keeble: I am coming to that issue.
	Discussions at this stage will provide an opportunity for operators and authorities to identify potential sites that will be acceptable to all parties. This will provide an early opportunity to discuss technical and environmental constraints, and to explore possible alternative approaches—in particular, the opportunities for mast and site sharing. That suggestion is frequently made by people who are concerned about this issue. If an operator is able at this stage to identify potentially sensitive sites, it may be able to adapt its strategy for an area.
	PPG8 suggests that pre-application discussions should be carried out by the operators with local planning authorities and other organisations with an interest in the proposed development, such as residential groups, parish councils or amenity groups. Such discussions can identify possible conflicts of interest at an early stage. In particular, our revised guidance makes it clear that there is a duty on both the operator and the local authority to consult the relevant body of a school or college near to which a proposed mast is to be sited. Pre-application discussions between the operators and the local planning authorities will be particularly helpful in identifying which schools or colleges should be consulted prior to an application being submitted.
	Evidence of the extent to which these consultations actually take place is mixed, as the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned. I want to reassure him that the Minister for Housing and Planning and I recently met industry representatives to discuss their progress in meeting their commitments. The industry has made a great deal of progress in establishing the procedures needed to take this work forward. We have emphasised strongly the need for pre-application discussions and consultations with the local community, and the importance of listening to, and taking seriously, local concerns.

John Pugh: If such a consensual plan can emerge and be agreed according to a roll-out programme between local authorities and mass providers, would local authorities thereby put themselves in a stronger position to refuse applications that fell outside that plan?

Sally Keeble: I will deal with that point in the time remaining, because it relates in particular to planning concerns and because I want to explain about the consideration of health issues. The Government attach importance to the implementation of the commitments but, in purely practical terms, it is important that local communities are consulted as well.
	On health and public concerns, I will have to stick to the wording in front of me; if I stray, I will get into considerable problems with planning appeals and so on. PPG8 also provides advice to local planning authorities about taking into account health and public concerns about mobile phone masts. Our guidance is clear that health considerations and public concern can, in principle, be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. I hope that that gives the clear guidance that is needed. However, whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision maker, usually the local planning authority, to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.

Phil Willis: Will the Minister give way?

Sally Keeble: No, because there is only one minute left.
	That is how decisions have to be made, and those rules have to be applied to each case.
	In conclusion, it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining health safeguards. If there are health risks, they should be dealt with directly and not obliquely, through the planning process. As I have said, the Government are adopting a range of measures on a precautionary basis, as advised by the Stewart report. It remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are needed to protect public health. The Government will continue to keep mobile phone technologies under review in the light of further research. I have already mentioned the scale of the research that we have commissioned.
	I believe that good planning for telecommunications will be achieved by the development of a partnership approach in all areas. That means parties placing a proper emphasis on discussions about future roll-out plans, particularly the localities involved, and on pre-application discussions to ensure that masts are sensitively and appropriately sited.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.